Gaza

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and, indeed, for giving me advance sight of it this afternoon.

Today, a spiral of violence has again engulfed Gaza, southern Israel and the west bank, bringing untold suffering to innocent people in its wake. Of course, I unequivocally condemn the firing of rockets into Israel by Gaza-based militants. No Government on earth would tolerate such attacks on its citizens, and we recognise Israel’s right to defend itself.

As the Foreign Secretary set out, in recent days hundreds of rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel, and at least three Israelis have been seriously injured. However, he was also right to acknowledge that, since the start of the Israeli military operation in Gaza just seven days ago, more than 170 Palestinians have been killed and thousands more have been injured. The UN has reported that more than 80% of those killed were civilians, and that a third of those killed were children. Although this conflict cannot and must not be reduced simply to a ledger of casualties, the scale of the suffering in Gaza today must be fully and frankly acknowledged, because the life of a Palestinian child is worth no less than the life of an Israeli child.

The Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned the horrific kidnap and murder of three Israeli teenagers and the burning alive of a teenage Palestinian, but although these repellent crimes seem to be the proximate cause of the latest spiral of violence, does he accept that the underlying cause of this latest crisis is the failure over decades to achieve a two-state solution for two peoples?

The spiral of violence of recent days is grimly familiar to anyone who remembers Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09 and Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012. The same bloodstained pattern is repeating itself. In the first operation, Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire. In the second operation, the Egyptians brokered one. Both times, it was clear that the conflict between Israel and Hamas could not be solved through force of arms alone. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore recognise that there can be no military solution to this conflict? Does he further accept that the scale of the suffering in Gaza, compounding the effects of the continuing blockade, serves to fuel hatred and, indeed, to embolden Israel’s enemies?

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the operating logic of Hamas is terror and the operating logic of Israel is deterrence, then pleas by the international community for restraint alone will be insufficient? Today, the risk of an all-out escalation in the conflict and the threat of a full ground invasion are still palpable—and preventable, if Hamas stops firing rockets.

As the Opposition, we are clear not only on the need for an immediate ceasefire, but that a full-scale ground invasion would be a disaster for the peoples of both Gaza and Israel, and a strategic error for Israel. Does the Foreign Secretary agree, and will he now make that position clear to the Israeli Government in the crucial hours and days ahead?

The Foreign Secretary spoke of the statements made by the UN Security Council on Saturday calling for a ceasefire, which I of course welcome. Alongside the Arab League at its meeting today, the UN must be forthright in its role of seeking to bring the recent violence to an end. Will he therefore support calls for the UN Secretary-General to travel to the region to act as a mediator between the two sides?

We know from bitter experience that a spiral of violence that reinforces the insecurity of the Israelis and the humiliation of the Palestinians leads only to further suffering. For Israel, permanent occupation, blockade and repeated military action in occupied land will make peace—and, ultimately, security—harder, not easier, to achieve. Alas, it is not a strategy for peace; it is a recipe for continued conflict.

The Foreign Secretary rightly and generously paid tribute to US Secretary of State Kerry’s considerable personal efforts to advance the middle east peace process, but, in truth, today there is no peace and there is also no process; instead there are continued rocket attacks and continued settlement expansion, growing fear and anxiety, and ongoing occupation.

I of course welcome the humanitarian efforts by both DFID and UNRWA that the Government have set out, but we all know that a humanitarian response, while vital, is not itself sufficient to end the suffering. In the past few days, Israel’s overwhelming military might has been obvious. Hamas, weakened today by Sisi’s rise in Egypt and differences with Iran over Syria, can avert the risk of an imminent ground invasion by stopping the rocket attacks, but Israel needs a strategy for building peace, not just tactics for winning the next round of war. This is a time and this is a crisis that demand not revenge, but statesmanship motivated by justice. Only politics, and a negotiated solution, offers a way forward to peace.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, which show that we share the same analysis of the situation and offer a similar response. He said that he was clear that no Government on earth could tolerate such attacks, and that Israel had the right to defend itself. I also made that clear in my statement. We also share the analysis that, while what he called the proximate cause was the horrific murders that have taken place in recent weeks, the underlying cause is the failure to make progress in the middle east peace process. That is something to which we must continue to give our attention.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the work of Secretary Kerry. I discussed these matters with Secretary Kerry yesterday afternoon in Vienna, and I can tell the House that he remains determined about the peace process despite everything that has happened, which is a great credit to him. He is determined that the United States will still play a leading role in pushing forward the process, and that this is a pause and not the end of the efforts to push it forward. We will continue to encourage him in that, and to help to deliver the support of the European Union.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no military solution to this, and that calls for restraint are important but not sufficient. We are very clear in our calls for restraint to all sides, including in the conversations I had with Israeli Ministers over the weekend, when I made it clear that we wanted to see restraint, proportionate response, de-escalation and the avoidance of civilian casualties. I think that the implications of such statements are very clear. We will support whatever role the UN Secretary-General can take in this.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the fact that Egypt played an important role in the November 2012 ceasefire. That is why I have been having discussions with the Egyptian Foreign Minister in recent days. On this occasion, other Arab states are also active in trying to bring about an agreed ceasefire. That is why I have been discussing this with other Arab Foreign Ministers before their meeting tonight, and we will continue to encourage them to do that. I believe that there is a common analysis, and a common appeal for a renewal of the peace process instead of a continuation of the violence, right across the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Let me say again that the new Government of the Palestinian Authority contain no Hamas members and have signed up to the Quartet principles, but I absolutely condemn any encouragement to foment further tensions, including the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers. That is exactly the sort of thing that obstructs a successful peace process and is presumably designed to do so. It is important that Hamas or anyone else desists from it.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Let me press the Foreign Secretary a little further on the subject of Iran. I welcome his announcement that the British embassy in Tehran will be reopened. Iran surely has a choice to make between being a stabilising and a destabilising force in an already volatile region, and Britain has a responsibility to try to ensure that Iran makes the right choice. Effective diplomatic links can surely assist in that endeavour. Will the Foreign Secretary set out his thinking on how engagement with Iran on tackling the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq could be used to help encourage a change of approach from Iran in relation to the conflict in Syria more broadly, which we all agree is intimately linked to the violence engulfing Iraq today?

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I referred to this yesterday during my statement and in response to questions earlier: we would welcome, and we will press for, a wider change in the foreign policy of Iran. Nuclear negotiations are taking place now, and it is important that those issues are resolved between Iran and the rest of the international community. Iran has the capability to play a more positive role across the region. It has played, for many years, a divisive and sectarian role through supporting divisive and often terrorist groups in other parts of the region. We look to it to desist from that, and we will use the expansion of our bilateral relations to press for that as well as to encourage links between the peoples of our countries and to have a good understanding of each other’s positions.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me ask the Foreign Secretary specifically about the nuclear negotiations that are under way. As he well knows, the deadline of 20 July for agreeing a comprehensive nuclear deal is now fast approaching. Does he accept that it is vital, notwithstanding the renewed diplomatic engagement with Iran, that the United Kingdom continues to exert pressure on Iran in the coming weeks to make the necessary concessions to reach a final deal on that agreed international timetable?

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. Those negotiations are entering a particularly intensive phase as we come towards 20 July, which is six months after the commencement of the interim deal on the nuclear issue. We made provision in the interim deal for that deadline to be rolled over for another six months, but no plan has been made to do so at the moment. It is important that the negotiations make major progress before 20 July, and that will require a more realistic approach by Iran in the negotiations than anything we have seen in recent months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. The arrival in Ukraine of three Russian tanks further underlines how Russia is allowing arms supplies to go to illegally armed groups in the south and east of Ukraine. Desisting from that will be fundamental to any understanding between the two countries, which it is in the interests of Russia to achieve.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Given the Gazprom decision of recent days of which the Foreign Secretary spoke a moment ago, will he set out what steps are being taken by the British Government along with our allies to continue to pressure Russia to engage more constructively with the Ukrainian Government in the light of what many will see as an aggressive and reprehensible act?

[Mr Hague]

From across the European Union and from the United States pressure is being exerted on Russia to desist from supplying illegally armed groups, as I have said, and to ensure that they continue to talk to and work with President Poroshenko of Ukraine. That is a very strong message from across the western world and that work will continue, of course, over the coming weeks. We will discuss this among EU Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg on Monday and I believe that a strong and united message will come from that meeting.

Iraq and Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this afternoon.

Let me begin by turning to the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on Iraq. That country is today facing fundamental threats to its integrity, security and stability. Faced with a lightning advance by a few thousand Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant fighters from their base in Syria’s Raqqah province, the Iraqi army’s presence in the northern and western Sunni-majority provinces has effectively collapsed. Beneath these latest advances for ISIL lies the deeper and fundamental question, not just for Iraq, but for its neighbouring countries across the region: can they, in time, develop a pluralistic, democratic politics, where people live together as citizens, rather than dividing along sectarian, ethnic or religious lines? Alas, today, the answer to that question still remains uncertain.

Inevitably and understandably, these events have rekindled the debate around the military intervention in Iraq 11 years ago. For most British people, including many of us who supported the action at the time, the fears of those opposed to the intervention have been vindicated by subsequent events. It is futile to deny that subsequent history, as surely as it would be folly to repeat it. Yet it is also facile to suggest that the crisis affecting Iraq today can be attributed solely to the consequences of intervention. Such an account denies the truth that the slide towards crisis in Iraq has been exacerbated by the civil war in Syria. Today these are two nations sitting astride the Sunni-Shi’ite faultline, engulfed increasingly by sectarian violence, while the rest of the region has looked on as sectarian tensions rise.

Tragically for Iraq, the hallmark of Nouri al-Maliki’s Shi’a-dominated Government has been a sectarian rather than an inclusive approach. Indeed, the welcome progress made by the leadership of the Kurdistan Regional Government since 2003 serves only further to highlight the extent of the Iraqi central Government’s failures in moving the country forward. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what specific steps the UK Government are taking, in co-ordination with allies, to encourage that formation of a new Government in Iraq? Beyond his conversation yesterday, what contact is being planned to urge Prime Minister Maliki to take concrete measures to reduce sectarian tensions, empower regional Governments and re-professionalise the Iraqi armed forces?

Today and in statements made over recent days, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that British military intervention in Iraq is not being contemplated. I welcome this assurance. Will he further give the House the assurance that the Government will not agree to any proposals significantly to increase the nature or scale of support that we are already giving to the Iraqi Government without a much wider debate in Parliament, and indeed the country?

It is clear that Iran is heavily engaged in Iraq today, so it was disappointing to hear Tehran apparently rule out direct talks with the Americans earlier this morning. I welcome confirmation that the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with his Iranian counterpart earlier today, but does he agree with me that there is now an urgent case for ensuring an effective British diplomatic presence in Tehran to help co-ordinate such discussions and to advance dialogue?

As the crisis continues, the scale of the humanitarian suffering inevitably grows, so I welcome the additional humanitarian funding that the Government have already announced, but will any further requests from Iraq’s Government for additional humanitarian support be considered promptly?

Many British citizens will have watched the scenes both in Syria and Iraq in recent days with growing concern and anxiety, so it is right that we pay tribute today to the work of the British intelligence and security forces, which are doing vital work to keep us all safe. Will the Foreign Secretary set out the Government’s latest assessment of the threat posed by British citizens returning from the region? I know that the Foreign Secretary will be concerned, too, about the safety of British diplomatic staff in Baghdad, Irbil, and Basra, so can he assure us that all the necessary plans are in place to guarantee their safety? The most urgent task now is for Iraq’s leadership to unite and galvanise its response to this crisis—the future of the whole country and the fate of millions of its citizens depend upon that.

Let me turn now to the preventing sexual violence in conflict summit in London, which was a genuine credit to the work of campaigners and activists around the world who have tirelessly worked to raise this issue up the political agenda. The British Government, and the Foreign Secretary personally, have done a great deal in recent months to help do just that, and I commend him sincerely for his efforts.

The Foreign Secretary was right to say in his statement that the priority now must be to translate words into practical action. I welcome the further £6 million pledged by the UK to support survivors of sexual violence in conflict. The statement of action to tackle the culture of impunity surrounding sexual violence in conflict, to which the Foreign Secretary rightly referred, was indeed an important step forward. Alongside agreeing a coherent legal framework, will he set out what further steps will be taken to help tackle some of the underlying issues that contribute to impunity, such as the independence of the judiciary within conflict-affected states? I look forward to the publication of the comprehensive report on the summit. Could he give us an indication of when we can expect it to be published? The real test now is whether the summit in London can make a difference on the ground in conflict zones around the world. The Foreign Secretary will certainly have our support in his work to ensure that it does.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. There is a huge amount of common ground on both these subjects. As he said, now is an important moment for seeing whether pluralistic, truly democratic politics can be created in Iraq. He made some references to the history and debates surrounding intervention, and I agree with what he said about that, too, in that there are many roots to what is happening here, including the growth of sectarianism, of religious intolerance across the middle east and, of course, the crisis in Syria. We must not think that everything that happens is a result of western action or inaction, although our actions can, of course, have a very important effect.



As for the specific steps that we are taking to encourage that pluralistic and inclusive politics, the primary step is, of course, persuasion. This is a sovereign country. I have put that argument—not for the first time—to Iraqi Ministers, who have been making the case directly to Prime Minister Maliki, among others, for some time, and our embassy is busily engaged in doing that with Iraqi Ministers now. However, I think that what has happened in Iraq over the past week will be a very vivid demonstration to Iraqi leaders that this is necessary, and is in their own interest. It is not just desirable as a point of political principle. It is essential for the future of Iraq that Sunni, Shi’a and Kurds work together—that all who support the existence of an Iraqi state work together—and if what is now happening does not demonstrate that clearly to them, nothing will. We will always try to persuade, but events on the ground are demonstrating the need for this.

The right hon. Gentleman endorsed what I had said about our approach to questions of military intervention. I am sure that, if there were a substantial change in that policy, I should be back here explaining it to the House, or asking permission for it, depending on the circumstances. He asked about relations with Iran. As I said in my statement, over the last few days I have talked to a number of Foreign Ministers around the region. As well as those whom I mentioned in the statement, I have talked to Ministers in Israel and Iran. Indeed, I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Iran on Saturday about a number of matters, including the situation in Iraq. He said that there was a case for a further step forward in our bilateral relations. I have discussed that with him, and I shall have something more to say about our discussions imminently—in fact, very imminently, if the right hon. Gentleman is here tomorrow. That is a heavy hint. However, our work on that is distinct from discussions on Iraq, which is partly why I shall address those separately.

As for humanitarian support, the right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and her Department are very quick to react. They have had the first field team in the north of Iraq in the last few days. They work closely with all the United Nations agencies, and envisage that more support may be necessary. Of course, we keep the safety of our staff in Baghdad under close review.

I was grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s supportive remarks about the work of the Government and many people around the world on the preventing sexual violence initiative. As he said, the key thing now is to turn that into practical action. I am convinced that if everyone who was at the summit last week now did what is set out in the protocol and the declaration on ending sexual violence in conflict, it would make a huge difference throughout the world. We all understand that a great deal of work will still be necessary to ensure that practical actions are taken by prosecutors in independent judiciaries, in military training and in the changing of laws. However, I believe that we have given real momentum to that work, and that it is an essential part of what I have described as a great strategic prize of this century: the full social, political and economic empowerment of women everywhere. We in the Government will remain utterly dedicated to that.

Ukraine

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for this statement and for advance sight of it.

Russia’s willingness to violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine is the gravest challenge to the European security order in decades. As this crisis continues, there are those who now argue that these actions are already undermining the belief of so many Europeans in recent years that further conflict on the European continent had become all but impossible.

The difficult but vital task of the international community, which is a matter of bipartisan agreement across the House, must be to ensure that, by demonstrating to the Russians the costs and consequences of their actions, we manage to secure a de-escalation of this continuing crisis. So I start by joining the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to Members across the House who took steps to pass the recent motion that suspended the voting rights of Russian MPs on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

At the weekend, I had the opportunity to meet a number of US Senators who were clear in their view that further action by Europe was now necessary. So I welcome the announcement made on 26 April by the G7 to extend existing sanctions against Russia, as well as today’s meeting of the Permanent Representatives in Brussels to finalise the extended list of individuals sanctioned by the EU. Similar measures have been in place since the conclusion of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 17 March and yet, as we have heard, Russia has regrettably still refused to change course. By what criteria are individuals being identified for action? Is it those with the most concrete interests within Europe, those with the biggest capacity to affect the course of events in the region or those most implicated in previous illegal actions?

The Foreign Secretary has indicated that the G7 is also exploring the possibility of wider sectoral sanctions against Russia, and I welcome those steps. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary stated in an interview on Sunday that such measures would be implemented

“if Russia continues to escalate this crisis.”

The Foreign Secretary confirmed today that the Government’s view is that the recent events in eastern Ukraine are

“being carried out at the direction of Russia.”

In the light of growing evidence that Russia is indeed escalating the crisis, will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether a continuation of the Russian Government’s current approach would itself in time constitute grounds for the G7 to decide that trade and sectoral sanctions were now necessary and appropriate?

The crisis is naturally causing real concerns among our NATO partners, in particular the Baltic states and Poland. I therefore welcome the steps announced by the Foreign Secretary today, but will he say a little more about his discussions with those NATO allies about the vital and necessary co-operation in the light of their pressing concerns given the security situation in the region?

An additional priority in the coming weeks must be securing conditions for free and fair presidential elections taking place in Ukraine on 25 May, which will involve operational and diplomatic support for the interim Government in Kiev. The Foreign Secretary is right to highlight today the £1 million pledged by the UK to support the deployment of up to 400 additional observers to strengthen the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission. In the light of the appalling treatment of seven OSCE monitors, which the Foreign Secretary rightfully condemned, will he confirm whether the OSCE intends to continue its mission in the east of Ukraine for the foreseeable future? What steps can and should be taken to try to protect those involved in the monitoring exercise?

I welcome the high-level international meeting due to take place in London tomorrow to support the Ukrainian Government’s efforts to recover stolen assets. The Foreign Secretary is right to support International Monetary Fund plans for a two-year programme to help Ukraine to reform and to become more prosperous in the long term. However, so far, no commitments have yet been made about the time frame for the delivery of that IMF support, so will the Foreign Secretary update the House about the progress made on that matter? Will he confirm whether those discussions are taking into account the significance of the period leading up to the elections on 25 May?

The current crisis has seen a series of tactical steps taken by the Kremlin, but it has also revealed longer-term strategic issues for Europe. Russia supplies around a third of the EU’s gas, but the Kremlin is also dependent on revenue from oil, gas and coal exports to the EU. I therefore welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the European Commission’s plan to reduce European countries’ reliance on Russian energy and the announcement by G7 Energy Ministers that they will hold discussions next week. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether a date will be set at that meeting for the publication of a report? Further, will he offer the House the British Government’s estimate of what actually is a realistic timetable by which the necessary infrastructure could be put in place to ensure a more meaningfully diverse supply of energy to Europe in the years ahead?

In conclusion, the days ahead mark a crucial juncture not just for Ukraine, but both for the European Union and our NATO allies. This is a moment of real geopolitical significance. Russian action, together with the international community’s response, is being watched not simply in the region, but right around the world. As in past weeks, in the days and weeks ahead, the Government will have our support in their efforts to help to ensure a de-escalation of the crisis by evidencing the costs and consequences to the Russians and by allowing Ukraine the opportunity to choose its own future.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting out a bipartisan approach, which is very welcome at important moments in foreign policy; it helps this country to send, and other countries to hear, a clear and united message. He joined me in paying tribute to Members on all sides—and I mean all sides—of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for their work over the past few weeks.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the criteria for placing people on the EU sanctions list. We have focused so far, including in the list that is about to be published, either on people in Crimea who have been part of what has happened there or on Russians involved in supporting the actions that have been taken in Crimea or eastern Ukraine—in other words, people with a direct political or other responsibility for what has happened. Of course, that could be broadened in future—the basis of the US sanctions is broader—but that is what we have focused on in the European Union. A question for the coming days will be whether to change the criteria for future rounds of sanctions if they prove necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman asked at what point in Russia’s escalations we will apply the third tier of sanctions, which is one of the major issues facing those countries applying sanctions. I do not think that it would be helpful to set out in detail a trip wire or red line, not least because that would invite Russia to go up to that point, knowing that it would not be subject to such sanctions. In the minds of many European countries, such sanctions are to be applied in the event of a Russian invasion of parts of eastern Ukraine. However, I think that it is important to hold out the option of applying such sanctions in circumstances that amount not to a military invasion, but to a political and forcible takeover by other means of large parts of eastern Ukraine.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about NATO Foreign Ministers. We are in close consultation across NATO. NATO Foreign Ministers met at the beginning of the month to discuss the situation in detail, and many of the measures that NATO has announced are the result of our discussions. The OSCE mission, which he asked about, is certainly continuing. The observers who have been taken hostage and paraded are not actually part of the special monitoring mission that is supporting implementation of the Geneva agreement; they are part of the military monitoring that the OSCE does anyway in an attempt to reduce tensions across eastern Europe. So far, the situation has not affected the OSCE’s determination to continue its mission. As of Friday, 122 observers have been deployed. As I mentioned in my statement, one of the reasons we have provided additional funding is so that up to 400 additional observers can be deployed, and we are in favour of the OSCE deploying a great many additional people.

The IMF support is a two-year programme, and its delivery depends upon the financial needs and performance of the Ukrainian Government over the coming weeks. It takes into account the proximity of the presidential elections. On the long-term strategic issues, I am in favour of being as transparent as possible at an early date about what the plans might involve, but clearly they still require further discussion.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how long it would take to change the infrastructure of Europe. Of course it would take many years to change the infrastructure in all the ways that could be considered, for example by completing construction of the southern gas corridor from the Caspian sea, or by changing infrastructure in the United States so that liquefied natural gas could be exported from its east coast. However, I think that a determination to embark on those and other measures would have an economic effect long before they were fully implemented. Russia has to take that into account in its actions now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I think there was a good deal of naked aggression in what happened in Crimea. Of course, my right hon. Friend is right about the great seriousness of any further encroachment into Ukraine. That is something we should bear in mind, as well as his point that historical analogies can always be misleading.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

As the Foreign Secretary’s earlier answers show, the protests across the east of Ukraine, in cities including Donetsk, highlight the continued risk of violent escalation and further bloodshed in Ukraine. In his first answer, the Foreign Secretary spoke of recent events bearing all the hallmarks of Russian involvement. Would he be willing to set out for the House in a little more detail his judgment of the form that the involvement of Russia has taken in recent days?

[Mr Hague]

Well, I said that it had the hallmarks of a Russian strategy to destabilise Ukraine and that is something we must expect in the run-up to the Ukrainian presidential elections on 25 May. It would be consistent with Russia’s strategy and behaviour over recent weeks to try to damage the credibility of those elections, to take actions that would make it appear less credible to hold the elections in eastern parts of Ukraine and to make it more difficult for Ukraine to operate as a democratic state. Those hallmarks are all present in what has happened in recent days.

[Mr Alexander]

I note and welcome the Foreign Secretary’s answer. The Prime Minister said in his statement to this House on Ukraine:

“The international community remains ready to intensify sanctions if Russia continues to escalate this situation”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 350.]

In the light of the Foreign Secretary’s answer, and if reports of Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine prove correct, does he believe that that would constitute grounds for widening the economic and diplomatic pressure on President Putin?

[Mr Hague]

That will depend on the course of events over the coming days and on the evidence of Russia’s involvement. The latest this morning is that the authorities in Kiev say that the situation is dangerous, as we have said in this House, but under control. Indeed, the administrative buildings in Kharkiv appear to be back under the control of the Ukrainian authorities. I think we will have to assess the situation over the coming days, but I say again that a deliberate escalation of the situation by Russia will bring serious political and economic consequences.

Ukraine

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this morning.

This crisis represents the most serious threat to European security in decades. Russia’s actions are a clear and unambiguous violation of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. There can be no justification for this dangerous and unprovoked military incursion. None the less, the Ukrainian Government are indeed to be commended, as the Foreign Secretary has done, for their calm response to this severe provocation.

The immediate priority must now be diplomatic action to secure a de-escalation of the crisis. Achieving this requires the international community to show both unity and resolve in pursuit of a twin-track approach aimed at stabilising the current situation. First, the international community needs to alter the calculus of risk in the minds of the Russian leaders by developing a graduated hierarchy of diplomatic and economic measures that make clear to the Russians the costs and consequences of this aggression. At the same time, the international community must make it clear to Kiev that the new Ukrainian Government must be inclusive, protect the rights of Russian-speaking populations within Ukraine, and make it clear to Russia that strengthening ties between Ukraine and the European Union should not be seen as a zero-sum game that will necessarily prejudice its own bilateral relations.

The obligations on Russia are clear, but so too must be the consequences of inaction. Yesterday’s decision at the EU Foreign Affairs Council to suspend further talks on the EU-Russia visa liberalisation programme was an important initial step, but will the Foreign Secretary inform the House of whether the UK was advocating further diplomatic measures beyond that?

It is right that the EU Council has called an emergency session for Thursday, but given yesterday’s events in Downing street, it is also right that there should be more clarity from the British Government, ahead of that meeting, about the types of costs and consequences that they are willing to impose on Russia. So will the Foreign Secretary reaffirm specifically that for the United Kingdom not only all diplomatic but all economic options do indeed remain on the table, going into the talks on Thursday? I am afraid that the United Kingdom’s words will count for little without more credence being given to these options and a willingness at least to countenance their use in the days and weeks ahead.

The House should understand that the costs and consequences to the European Union of not achieving unity and resolve at this time are clear: a Russia emboldened in its ambitions towards Ukraine; a central Europe fearful of future military intervention; and a United States increasingly concerned about Europe’s willingness to act, even diplomatically and economically, in the face of such threats. Therefore, as well as pulling out of the Sochi G8 preparatory meetings, will the Foreign Secretary specifically confirm whether the UK remains open to withdrawing from that June summit?

Alongside diplomatic pressure, it is also right that the international community should give appropriate assurances to both sides about the potential dividends of avoiding a descent into further violence. Recent estimates suggest that the Ukrainian Finance Ministry needs $35 billion of support over the next two years in order to avoid economic collapse. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement today of technical assistance for economic and political reform in Ukraine and, of course, he has previously highlighted the very serious and real concerns about ongoing corruption in Ukraine. However, given the acknowledged weakness of the present Ukrainian Government, will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether, in his judgment, the IMF will be able to respond in a timescale that avoids the present security crisis being rapidly followed by a financing crisis in Kiev?

Russia’s incursion into Ukraine was, of course, unjustified and illegal, but the Ukrainian Government none the less have a key role to play in helping to diffuse the situation by providing the appropriate assurances to Russia about their conduct, intentions and priorities. That includes being clear about the status of minorities in the country, the attitude to the Russian language and the conduct of fresh elections in the months ahead.

Will the Foreign Secretary set out what specific assurances he sought from the Ukrainian Government during his welcome visit to Kiev yesterday regarding the status of minorities and in particular the Russian language, given the steps previously agreed and then vetoed by the Ukrainian President? It is vital, as the Foreign Secretary has indicated, that these assurances are given as part of an open and direct dialogue between Kiev and Moscow. Indeed, a contact group may certainly have a constructive role to play.

The inviolability of Ukraine’s borders and territorial integrity reflects deeply held principles of the international system. The situation on the ground certainly remains tense, uncertain and, indeed, vulnerable to misunderstanding or misjudgment. That is why this is a time for cool heads and considered words.

As upholders of that international order, the United Kingdom and our allies have responsibilities that extend beyond regard for each individual country’s bilateral relations with Russia. The Ukraine crisis is surely a moment of real geopolitical significance, so the United Kingdom must not now retreat into a new isolationism and should instead keep all diplomatic and economic measures open to us and our partners as we work to achieve unity and resolve in the international community’s diplomatic response, and so contribute to the de-escalation of the crisis.

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman called for all diplomatic measures to be used, which, as he and the House will have gathered from my statement, is absolutely what we are doing. Indeed, I think from his questions that there is very strong agreement about the gravity of the threat and the principles that should guide us in responding to it.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke, as I have done frequently over the past few days, about the violation of Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty. Like me, he commended the Ukrainian Government on their restraint. I certainly urge them to continue with that and to continue to do everything they can to show that they are being inclusive within Ukraine and that there is no threat to Russian-speaking or other minorities. Indeed, I put it to them yesterday that they could consider positively additional changes to language laws to give an extra assurance. I very much welcome the decision of the acting President not to allow any laws that infringe Russian language rights to go ahead.

On the subject of the Ukrainian Government, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether I thought the IMF would be able to respond. I think there is strong recognition among the Ukrainian Ministers I met that they need to do something quite different economically and that they have to tackle the deep-seated issues that I described in my statement. I think it is entirely possible that the IMF will be able to respond, although possibly in a two-stage process, with the second stage following the elections on 25 May. I met three of the likely presidential candidates while I was there—they are not in the Government, but they are likely to run for President—and I encouraged all of them to support economic reforms, including an end to corruption and much greater transparency in government in Ukraine. I think there is a reasonable prospect of agreeing a programme on the basis of such commitments.

The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the initial step—I think that is the right way to describe it—taken at the Foreign Affairs Council. Certainly, the United Kingdom has strongly advocated that we need to be ready to take further actions. Those actions, however, must be on a united basis and, of course, be well judged and well targeted. Therefore, I do not think it would be helpful for different countries to announce ahead of the European Council what they want to see. It is important that the European Council agree a united position and whatever measures it decides to take on Thursday.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether all diplomatic and economic options remain on the table, and the answer is yes, as we discussed during oral questions earlier. No partially photographed documents should be taken as any guide to Her Majesty’s Government’s decisions on these matters. Those options remain open.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the June summit. We have suspended the preparations for it. As I told the media yesterday, the G7 will be able to hold meetings of our own if that suspension continues and that, of course, is an option. It will be necessary not only to take well-judged measures in our response, but for there to be recognition across the European Union that Russia needs the EU economically just as much, or more, than the EU needs Russia. We need to have the common political will and to organise ourselves in a sufficiently cohesive way in order to have the political will and economic leverage in future to make that much clearer than it is today. I think that doing that may be one of the longer-term consequences of what Russia has done in Crimea.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We will do that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels yesterday while I was in Kiev. There will be a meeting of the European Council—the Heads of Government of the European Union—on Thursday to discuss these matters, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will attend. Yesterday evening, he telephoned President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel to co-ordinate our approach. I therefore can assure my hon. Friend that we will play a leading role in a united European approach.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I have stated previously my support for the Foreign Secretary’s efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to this crisis, and I repeat that today. However, yesterday in Downing street, there was a very serious blunder at a very serious time, with Government briefing documents mistakenly entering the public domain. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the impact of that blunder risks being much more than ministerial embarrassment, and that it risks compromising the UK’s influence with Russia and our key allies at what remains a crucial and, indeed, dangerous time?

[Mr Hague]

Any such photographing of documents or making documents available for photographing is absolutely regrettable and should not happen. I hope that all officials will ensure that it does not happen in future. Nevertheless, it must be seen in perspective. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it has those implications. I want to make it absolutely clear that anything that is written in one document that is being carried by one official is not necessarily any guide to the decisions that will be made by Her Majesty’s Government. Our options remain very much open on this subject.

[Mr Alexander]

I find the Foreign Secretary’s words reassuring, in part. However, let us pursue the implications of what was revealed by the document. Does he accept that, given the gravity of the moment, if every country were to refuse to countenance any economic or diplomatic action that would affect its bilateral standing with Russia, the cumulative effect would be damaging not just for that individual country, but for regional stability and international order?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, very much. I absolutely accept that, which is why I repeat that anything photographed, or a partial account of a document from one photograph, should certainly not be taken as a guide to the views of the Foreign Secretary, and not necessarily as a guide to the decisions that will be made by Her Majesty’s Government. Our options remain open, and I agree with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Ukraine, Syria and Iran

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it.

On Syria, I join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming UN Security Council resolution 2139. Despite the progress made in securing this resolution, however, the UN’s humanitarian appeal sadly remains chronically underfunded. Will the Foreign Secretary join the calls we have made for a fresh donor conference urgently to secure additional funds? If not, will he set out for the House the mechanism by which he judges the funding gap can be better closed? The Foreign Secretary acknowledges that those supporting the regime’s side, including the Russian and Iranian Governments, need to do far more to press the regime to take the process seriously and to reach a political settlement. Will he therefore explain his continued opposition to the establishment of a Syria contact group that could get these Governments around the table?

On Iran, we welcome the agreement on a framework for negotiations on a comprehensive deal in Vienna last week, but progress on a comprehensive deal must be made explicitly contingent on Iran adhering to the terms of the interim joint action plan signed up to in November. Iran is reportedly still operating more than 10,000 centrifuges, yet the interim deal sets out a much lower target. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what ongoing steps are being taken to bring Iran into line with the existing demands of the deal it has already signed up to? Will the Foreign Secretary set out the Government’s most recent estimates of the benefits that limited sanctions relief has so far brought to the Iranian economy, and whether the UK has any plans to push for extending, or indeed limiting, the existing relief package agreed by the P5+1, so as not to undermine the twin-track approach supported on both sides of the House?

Turning now to the events in Ukraine, may I join the Foreign Secretary in offering condolences to the families of those killed and injured during the latest violence? Recent days have seen protest, tragedy and change on the streets of Kiev. The first priority must of course be to ensure that the transition to an interim Government is peaceful and that further bloodshed is avoided. We welcome the work already done by the EU High Representative, including on her most recent visit to Kiev today, to try to facilitate this transition, but does the Foreign Secretary believe that the EU should now appoint a dedicated special envoy to support these efforts?

Alongside political turmoil, the Ukrainian economy has been in a long decline and is now on the verge of collapse. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether he has established, during his call with Foreign Minister Lavrov, whether the Russian offer of financial support, which was previously made to the Yanukovych Government, has now been withdrawn? In December, I asked the Foreign Secretary about his readiness to call on International Monetary Fund reserves to be used to help to stabilise the Ukrainian economy. At that time, he said:

“If Ukraine is to make use of that facility, it is necessary for it to engage in important structural reforms.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 764.]

Yesterday, two months since I first raised the issue, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that he believes the IMF should be prepared to act. We have all seen in recent months the geopolitical risks of delay in delivering effective financial action, so does the Foreign Secretary recognise that while conditionality is of course necessary, there are potentially urgent issues around solvency that may need to be addressed? If he does accept that, how does he propose that they should be addressed?

The European Union association agreement which sparked the recent crisis could still prove vital in helping to revive the rebalancing of the Ukrainian economy in the long term. Will the Foreign Secretary be pushing for negotiations on the reopening of the agreement, and should the terms of the deal itself be kept closed or be revisited? President Obama was right to say that Ukraine could no longer be seen simply as a “cold war chessboard”, but will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he was aware of any guarantees from Foreign Minister Lavrov that Russia would not encourage southern and eastern regions of Ukraine to break away from the rest of the country? Of course Ukrainians have divergent views on the future of their country, strongly shaped by geopolitics, language, economics, and indeed geography, but the territorial integrity of Ukraine remains a matter of significance not just to Ukraine itself, but to the whole wider region.

The Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland, alongside Catherine Ashton, have done vital work in recent days, and the Foreign Secretary was right to praise their efforts. Indeed, recent events in Ukraine have made it clear that—as in other instances—the influence of the United Kingdom Government, acting alone, would have had much less impact without our ability to amplify our influence through our membership of the European Union. However, although that important work has been done in recent days, all of us in the European Union and the international community should acknowledge that much work still lies ahead in relation to this troubled but important country.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for Security Council regulation 2139, which was passed at the weekend. As he said, only part of the $6.5 billion for which the UN appealed has been provided; $2.2 billion was secured at the pledging conference in Kuwait last month, which means that much more needs to be raised. Given that that conference was held only five weeks ago, I do not think that holding another now would greatly change the position, but it is very important for us to follow up last month’s conference. Ministers from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development are doing that all the time, and are pressing for other donations. I do not rule out the need for further such conferences—indeed, I am sure that no supportive Government would do so—but if we are to achieve the momentum that will enable us to secure more donations, we shall need a wider gap than the five weeks that have elapsed so far.

The important aspect of the resolution that was passed at the weekend is that, while it does not change the amounts involved, it does allow us to try to help in new ways. The provisions relating to the delivery of aid across borders, which the UN has not previously authorised, and to aid for civil society in Syria, are very important if they can now be followed up. If implemented, the resolution will help to improve the humanitarian situation.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about a contact group. I do not think that I have ever said that I was opposed to such a group, but, as with any issue, a useful contact group must be cohesive in its purpose. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that one commodity we are not short of, in relation to Syria, is meetings about Syria. I do not know how many hundreds I have attended over the past three years, but if they were the solution, everything would have been resolved a long time ago.

Progress is made—and it has been made in relation to chemical weapons and the resolution passed at the weekend—when the five permanent members of the Security Council achieve some cohesion, in this case with the strong encouragement of Australia, Jordan and Luxembourg on the Security Council, and that remains the most promising way in which to move forward on Syria. However, if we could achieve more cohesion in regard to purposes and pressure on both sides, contact groups could be established in the future. I am not opposed to that.

Iran is currently implementing the agreement, as far as everyone—including the International Atomic Energy Authority—can see. We are not considering extending or limiting the sanctions relief of approximately $7 billion in the current six-month period, which is the amount specified in the agreement. The agreement can be renewed after six months, for further periods of six months. If it were renewed, further sanctions relief would need to be negotiated, but within this six-month period, we must and will stick to the agreed amount, and will not extend or limit it. The estimated amount of about $7 billion must be set in the context of about $60 billion to $100 billion of Iranian assets frozen worldwide. That is small relief, relative to the total, but it is an important signal of our seriousness, and it will maintain the pressure on Iran to come to a comprehensive agreement on the nuclear issues.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s questions on Ukraine, it is not clear at the moment how Russia will proceed with financial assistance. He appeared to suggest that there should be unconditional IMF or other assistance for the country. He rightly pointed out that I said, months ago, that there were important conditions to be attached, and I still say that today. It is vital that such economic assistance, through international financial institutions, should not be wasted and that it should not indirectly subsidise Russia. Any such money therefore has to be accompanied by serious reform in Ukraine. The IMF could put together a package very quickly; a programme has been almost ready to go for some time, and the groundwork has all been laid, but the Ukrainian Government’s commitment to much-needed reform is important—as it is in any country receiving support from the IMF.

Ukraine needs to demonstrate the stability of its public debt burden as well as strong prospects for access to private capital markets and the political capacity and will to deliver reform. There is no reason why a new Government should not do those things very quickly. The association agreement remains on the table, but the priority now is to achieve an end to violence, to establish a unity Government and to hold free elections that are fair to all concerned. The appointment of a special envoy is a matter for the High Representative to consider, but it is something that the United Kingdom would support.

Sri Harmandir Sahib

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this morning?

May I also take this opportunity to thank colleagues who have campaigned to help uncover the truth about the tragic events of 1984? I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and for Warley (Mr Spellar) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). They have done important work on behalf of many of their constituents, and it is only right that this House offers them its collective thanks for their determined efforts.

As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, the 1984 raid on the Golden Temple complex—code-named Operation Blue Star—resulted in hundreds of deaths, devastating damage to the temple itself and rising levels of sectarian violence, which ultimately saw the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi later that year.

I welcome what light the report sheds on the British Government’s alleged involvement in those events and the fact that some of the key documents relating to the event in question, and the British Government’s alleged involvement, have now been published.

Serious questions continue to be asked, however, about the involvement, conduct and contribution of the British authorities at the time—going up to the highest level—in the events that surrounded the storming of the Golden Temple and that ultimately cost so many innocent lives. In the light of that, I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary the following questions.

First, I regret that the Government have so far refused to accept our call that all relevant documentation relating to the incident that can be should now be made public. I welcome the publication of five further documents as part of today’s report, but, given that the report itself cites “officials interviewed” over the course of this investigation, will the Foreign Secretary now commit to publishing a list of those officials, and will he confirm whether any surviving Ministers who served at the time were interviewed as part of the investigation? Will he also confirm whether these testimonies will be made public?

Secondly, on the terms of this investigation led by the Cabinet Secretary, I welcome the fact that, following representations by the Sikh community, the Cabinet Secretary published a letter detailing the scope of the inquiry. Will the Foreign Secretary explain, however, why there was a more than three-week delay in publishing those terms of reference? Will he further explain whether the terms of the inquiry changed over the course of the inquiry?

The terms of reference, as published in a letter from the Cabinet Secretary on 1 February, did not include specific reference to the time period covered by the investigation, yet the final report sets out a time frame of December 1983 to June 1984. Will the Foreign Secretary explain why that time frame was not made public at an earlier stage?

Many have already expressed regret that the investigation seemed to be covering only the first part of 1984, given the significance of events in the weeks and months after June 1984 and their direct link to the storming of the Golden Temple.

Will the Government therefore task the Cabinet Secretary with setting out whether he believes that there might be grounds for a full inquiry covering a longer period?

Turning to the substance of the findings, the report states that the UK military adviser in India from 8 to 17 February 1984 advised the Indian Government that

“this type of operation should only be put into effect as a last resort when all other courses of negotiation had failed”.

Based on the documents that he has seen, but for understandable reasons may not be able to publish, will the Foreign Secretary set out what type of operation was referred to in that case?

The report also sets out that a “quick analysis” by current UK military staff confirms that there were differences between the June operation and the advice from the UK military officer in February. Will the Foreign Secretary explain the nature of the quick analysis undertaken on such a central part of the investigation? Does he expect a fuller review of that aspect of the evidence to be conducted?

The report touches on the allegations that the potential sale of Westland helicopters was linked to the provision of military advice. It claims that no evidence was found to substantiate that allegation, but none of the annexed documentation so far released pertains to that issue. The report cites

“ongoing contacts between UK and Indian officials around the time of Operation Blue Star on potential defence related sales”.

Will the Foreign Secretary commit to publish this correspondence?

A few moments ago, the Foreign Secretary spoke about the exchange of correspondence between Prime Minister Gandhi and Prime Minister Thatcher, yet only Prime Minister Gandhi’s letter appears to have been published today. Will he undertake to publish the response of Prime Minister Thatcher?

Everyone in this House is aware of the continuing pain felt by the Sikh community around the world at the events of 1984—not just at the storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar and the deaths and destruction that followed, but at the anti-Sikh violence that followed the assassination of Prime Minister Gandhi, and the emergency period that saw arbitrary arrests, and accusations of torture, rape and disappearances that are still unresolved today.

Although there are of course differences within the Sikh community on the issue of a separate Sikh state, there is unanimity in their horror at those events. For British Sikhs over recent weeks, there has been the additional burden of worry that their own Government may have been involved in those actions. The Government therefore have a responsibility—indeed, a duty—to address those very widespread concerns and fears. If they can provide answers to all those concerns and questions, we as the Opposition will support them in that endeavour.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. He is right to draw attention to the efforts of several of our colleagues, on these and other issues, always to find out the truth about events in the past as well as in our own times. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) is another example.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to the anxiety about these events that many people have expressed during recent weeks. That is why we should do everything we possibly can to set out the truth of the matter, in so far as that can be discovered from documents and from discussions with officials. Taking what I said earlier as a whole, I think that the story is a reassuring one for the House, the public and the Sikh community.

The right hon. Gentleman asked certain specific questions about the process. He asked whether we would publish a list of officials. No, I do not think that that would be appropriate. It is important to protect the anonymity of some of the officials and military personnel involved. He asked whether Ministers have been spoken to. Yes, the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation included discussions with the senior Ministers of the time. He asked whether the terms of the inquiry changed. No, they did not change, except that the Cabinet Secretary’s work was expanded to cover some additional concerns that were raised during the past few weeks—we may come to some of them later during questions—but the terms of the inquiry remained the same.

There is no mystery about the dates. At the beginning, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate the specific events—whether there had been UK involvement in the specific events leading up to and during Operation Blue Star in June 1984—and the time frame was therefore from the start of what happened at the location in question in December 1983 to the Indian operation in June 1984. As the right hon. Gentleman will have gathered from my statement, the Cabinet Secretary was able to go beyond that to say that in the 23,000 documents he has seen no circumstantial evidence of British involvement in any subsequent military operation in the Punjab. One of the questions raised is whether there could have been British military involvement in subsequent Operations Black Thunder I and II. From everything that the Cabinet Secretary has seen, having examined hundreds of files—200 files—the answer to that is no.

The relevant documents—those that can be published while, as I have said, upholding the publication principles that all British Governments have always observed—that relate specifically to Operation Blue Star have been published. There will of course be publication over the coming years of many more documents concerning British relations with India at the time. I certainly do not want to suggest that no more documents will be published that can shed light on relations between Britain and India through the 1980s. As I understand it, the 30-year rule—it will become the 20-year rule—is implemented on the basis of 30 years from files coming to an end, but such files contain documents from earlier years. Therefore, other documents will of course be published about this period. However, the relevant files have all been searched, and these are the documents that shed light on Blue Star.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the quick analysis by the military. I do not think that the word “quick” should be used in a pejorative sense. The report has been quite quick, given that concerns arose only a few weeks ago, and military experts have provided an analysis, but it is clear even to a layman that the military operation mounted was very different from any that was discussed in the documents. As I mentioned earlier, it was entirely different: it did not have the element of surprise; there were no helicopter-borne forces; and it was conducted by the Indian army, not by the paramilitary forces present when the UK military adviser was there in February. Even to the non-expert on such matters, the military operation mounted in June was clearly fundamentally different from any discussed in February 1984.

Overall, I therefore think that this report has the right degree—a strong degree—of transparency, and is a thorough and good job by the Cabinet Secretary, and we should be prepared to support it as such.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we do raise that with Russia, and we particularly raise the issue of humanitarian access. We and other countries are providing generously for humanitarian relief in and around Syria, but the regime continues to deny access to more than 200,000 people in besieged areas. We continue to look to Russia to help to lift the regime’s sieges of those areas.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

This morning’s reports in The Guardian of the systematic killing and torture by Syrian Government forces of 11,000 detainees are deeply disturbing. The important work done to collect and publish that material was essentially a privately funded initiative run by a London-based law firm. In the light of that, will the Foreign Secretary set out what steps the international community, and the UK Government in particular, are taking to help catalogue and document evidence about alleged gross violations of human rights?

[Mr Hague]

We have a done a great deal, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the evidence that was published last night. That was done with the assistance of the Qatari Government, so it was not entirely a private initiative. I have seen a lot of the evidence. It is compelling and horrific, and it is important that those who have perpetrated those crimes are one day held to account. The United Kingdom has done a great deal in the documentation of human rights abuses, and part of the support we have given to moderate political forces in Syria is to train human rights activists in the recording and documentation of crimes, many of which have therefore come to the world’s attention. We will do more of that.

[Mr Alexander]

We all welcome the fact that the Geneva II conference is due to commence in Switzerland tomorrow. Will the Foreign Secretary today set out what he would regard to be realistic ambitions for the discussions this week? Does he agree that confidence-building measures could be an important step towards securing further progress, and if so, does he believe in the relative likelihood of local ceasefires, humanitarian access, or prisoner exchanges being agreed in the coming days?

[Mr Hague]

Confidence-building measures would assist enormously, including prisoner releases and local ceasefires. Although there have been discussions about those issues over the past 10 days, they have not yet borne fruit, and it is important that real effort is made on that in the opening stages of the Geneva II talks. I will attend the opening of those talks tomorrow and speak on behalf of our country, and I will encourage progress from all sides on the creation of a transitional governing body. Realistically, we are starting a process; it is important that a political process is started and then pursued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely—my hon. Friend is right to highlight the vital role of British forces. Later this year, we will have the 70th anniversary of D-day, when it will be important to remember that it made possible the liberation of Europe and the role of British forces in doing exactly what he has described.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Given the publication by the Foreign Office of its Scotland analysis paper last week, what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the impact on Scotland’s exports and influence of reducing a diplomatic network of 14,000 people spread across 267 locations and 152 countries to just 70 to 90 diplomatic offices?

[Mr Hague]

It is clear that Scottish independence would involve a huge reduction in its diplomatic presence and influence around the world. We make a great impact as the United Kingdom on so many issues all over the globe. It would not be possible to do that with between 70 and 90 offices in place of our current 267 embassies and consulates. It would also not be possible to replicate the huge effort that the UK Government and UK Trade & Investment put in to promoting Scottish exports and trade around the world. For instance, I am very proud of everything I have done to promote the interests of scotch whisky all over the world.

Syria

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for giving me advance sight of it.

On Iran, agreeing the terms of the deal in Geneva back in November was indeed an important first step, but the real test remains how it is implemented on the ground. Given the past conduct of the Iranian regime, it is now vital that the international community remains vigilant and stringently monitors the implementation of the first stage nuclear agreement in the months ahead.

Turning to Syria, a conflict that began nearly three years ago as an uprising against the Assad regime has since inflamed sectarian fault lines within the country and mutated into a proxy regional conflict, so delivering support to those most affected by the ongoing violence remains urgent and vital. Ahead of this week’s long-awaited second pledging conference in Kuwait, Baroness Amos has already stressed that the conference will need to raise much more than the $1.5 billion raised last year if it is to meet the scale of the humanitarian need.

The Opposition of course welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the UK Government have now allocated or delivered all our funding promises, but earlier today the Secretary of State for International Development confirmed that contributions from others have so far fallen well short. Will he therefore tell the House what action the Government are taking to encourage other nations to meet their obligations on past pledges, before further pledges are made in the coming days? We also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s efforts, along with the Friends of Syria group, to encourage the Syrian National Coalition to commit to attending the Geneva talks.

In the light of experience of such conflicts, such as the 15-year Lebanese civil war, and the apparent intractability of the factions fighting within Syria today, we all recognise the scale of the challenge, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke, involved in securing a full transitional deal in Geneva in the coming days. Yet surely the first goal at Geneva II, between the main international and regional players, could and should be to aim to secure a stop to the escalation and fuelling of the conflict.

That is why the role of Iran in particular may yet be crucial. Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said that Iran would take part in the Geneva II peace conference if invited without preconditions. He added:

“We support any initiative aimed at finding a political solution to the Syrian crisis.”

It is of course right to acknowledge the role that Iran has so far played in deepening and inflaming this conflict. Yet with the need for resolution now so urgent, does the Foreign Secretary agree that Iran’s claimed resolve to be part of the solution should now be tested, and if so, does he agree that one way of doing so is to bring Iran to the table at Geneva to participate in the conference?

A key priority for the international community at that conference must surely be to minimise the problems of overspill across the region by working with allies in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what other steps, beyond humanitarian support, the UK Government are taking to help the Governments of Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon to respond to the growing internal political and economic pressure that the Syrian conflict is placing on them?

The rise of al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria, such as those the Foreign Secretary mentioned, is not of course simply a concern for Syria; they form but part of a crescent of crisis that stretches from Iraq to Lebanon. Will the Foreign Secretary set out his assessment of the extent to which British citizens are playing a role in these conflicts, and will he assure the House today that our agencies are sufficiently focused on these deeply troubling developments?

The challenges to be addressed by the Geneva II conference are of course considerable, but the process under way to secure the peaceful destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile offers us a point of hope amid the death and destruction still being witnessed in the country. The Government will therefore have our support in the coming days in their effort to secure real and substantial progress in Geneva next week towards a political settlement that ends the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, including for the strong support across the House for our trying to do everything we can to make a success of the start of the Geneva II process. He is of course absolutely right to say that a beneficial early product of that could be measures that stop the fuelling and escalation of the conflict. That is why I have talked, as have Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov at their press conference today, about the great desirability of local ceasefires and improved access for humanitarian aid even before we all get to Geneva next week. These are of course things that could also be beneficial products of the process.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the role of Iran. He said correctly that Iran has done quite a bit to deepen and inflame the crisis, including through much direct support for the Assad regime and its brutal treatment of its people. Our position on Iran depends very much on its readiness to work with the outcome of Geneva I. The invitation letter of the UN Secretary-General is clear about the purpose of our invitation to Montreux and then to Geneva, where we will carry on next week, which is to implement the original Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012. Iran was not present at that conference, but all the other nations are united behind that communiqué. That includes Russia, which was represented there.

That is the basis of Geneva II. It is about bringing about a transitional governing body with full executive authority that is formed by mutual consent. A signal of support for that being our united purpose would be very helpful in getting Iran to Geneva II. There is no problem in principle in any quarter, and certainly not among western nations, with Iran coming, but there is the practical problem of whether it is prepared to play a constructive role if it gets there. We would welcome stronger signals of that from the Iranians.

On the questions about Jordan and Lebanon, a great deal of the help that I have described is humanitarian assistance. In the case of Lebanon, where there has been violence, we use our diplomatic presence in every possible way to help the authorities to calm the situation. We also give direct support to the Lebanese armed forces. We help to finance some of their border posts. I welcome the recently announced support from Saudi Arabia for the Lebanese armed forces. It is providing $3 billion of assistance to build up the Lebanese armed forces. We have assisted Jordan with a good deal of equipment, as well as with the support that I have mentioned.

It is clear that the number of British nationals who have travelled to the region to fight is into the hundreds. We are vigilant about that and all our security agencies are focused on it. It is important to make it clear that we are prepared to act to obstruct people from doing that. The Government have the right and the power to confiscate passports. When people are resident in the UK but are not British nationals, we can cancel their leave to remain in the UK on the basis of such activity. I stress, as I have stressed since April 2011, that we advise against all travel to Syria. We of course advise people against going to fight in Syria, but we advise against all travel to Syria even for those who go there for more laudable motives. We are very limited in what we can do to assist people once they have gone there.

Our work on the destruction of chemical weapons will, of course, continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Clearly, it is open to Ukraine to change its policy. As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a great deal of discussion about that in Ukraine at the moment. Again, I urge the Ukrainian authorities to respect the right of peaceful protest and to investigate thoroughly why police violence was used several days ago. I believe it would also be in the long-term interests of Russia for Ukraine to have more open trade with the European Union. The sorts of economic benefits that I have said would flow to Ukraine would go on to benefit the Russian economy as well.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary said a moment ago that the benefits of this potential agreement are self-evident. The EU High Representative has described it as the

“most ambitious agreement ever offered to a partner country”,

yet, as we have heard, the Ukrainian President has refused to sign it. Will the Foreign Secretary set out a little more of what he believes were the main barriers to the deal being agreed and whether he still believes they can be overcome, given the external pressure on Ukraine?

[Mr Hague]

One principal barrier was the pressure from Russia not to sign or make such an agreement with the European Union. As I have said, we disagree with that assessment even from Russia’s point of view. It would be in the interests of Russia and the whole of eastern Europe to have more open trade and co-operation with each other. We will go on setting out the advantages, but we will also look to Ukraine to clearly meet the criteria set out in the association agreement. Reliable studies have suggested that average wages in Ukraine would rise and that exports to the EU would rise by an estimated 6%. The arguments are very clear, but in the end it is for Ukrainians to make their judgment on them.

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the candour of his last answer, which confirms the role that Russia clearly played in the events that unfolded at the summit. Reports suggest that the International Monetary Fund has a stand-by facility of between $10 billion and $15 billion to provide emergency financial support for Ukraine should Russia take steps to increase economic pressure on the country. Will he set out the British Government’s position on that stand-by facility, and say whether he thinks there might be circumstances in which it is appropriate to make it available to Ukraine?

[Mr Hague]

If Ukraine is to make use of that facility, it is necessary for it to engage in important structural reforms. The reforms on which the IMF has made a new arrangement conditional would help to build a more stable and prosperous Ukraine, which again is important.

It is also important to note in passing that although this agreement has not been signed, deep and comprehensive free trade areas have been agreed between the EU and Georgia and Moldova, so parts of the EU’s Eastern Partnership have continued to progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

We will take a look at that. The Prime Minister’s visit to India was certainly very successful. We have greatly strengthened our relations with India with the Prime Minister’s three visits and all the other work we have done. My hon. Friend draws attention to an important issue, and I undertake to him that we will look at it in more detail.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Can the Foreign Secretary offer the House an explanation as to why it has taken the Prime Minister three years to make his second visit to China this week?

[Mr Hague]

I think the right hon. Gentleman could have phrased the question in a slightly more positive way, for instance by asking why it is that this Prime Minister has taken the biggest ever trade delegation to China or why we now have more dialogue between the UK and China than ever before, more people-to-people exchanges, more students studying in each other’s countries than ever before, and more trade and investment than ever before. Clearly the Prime Minister gets extremely good value out of the visits he makes.

Sexual Violence in Conflict

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it.

The Foreign Secretary is right to say that condemnation is simply not enough and that action is required against these abhorrent and heinous crimes. When this matter was last debated in this House, I put on record the Opposition’s support for the Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative, and I paid tribute to the Foreign Secretary’s considerable and personal efforts in this area. I am happy to do so again today. Indeed, I welcome the steps that have been taken since that debate in March, including by the Foreign Secretary himself, to help maintain and to raise the profile of this issue on the international stage. In particular, I welcome the decision to host a global summit in London next year, co-chaired by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Special Envoy Jolie.

The Foreign Secretary did not make reference to the work of campaigning organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Saferworld and others. I hope and trust that that was an inadvertent oversight, but I am sure he will join me in welcoming their vital contribution to help advance this cause in recent months and over many years. Their work has been indispensible in placing this issue firmly on the international agenda, so will he assure the House of their active and engaged participation in the summit to be held in London next year?

Sexual violence in conflict is today all too prevalent across the world. The perpetrators are rarely held to account for their crimes, as we have just heard. Indeed, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the issue as

“the most pervasive violation of human rights across the globe”.

The Foreign Secretary is therefore right when he says that this is the time for the international community to step up its efforts to respond to these continuing and pervasive crimes.

When the Foreign Secretary last addressed this House on the matter back in March, he set out a number of measures that the Government were introducing to try to tackle this issue globally. I would like to ask a series of questions about their subsequent implementation. First, sexual violence as a tool of war remains one of the least prosecuted crimes, and I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s focus on that work today. Will he set out for the House how many UK personnel have been deployed in post-conflict areas, as part of the UK team of experts, to help improve local accountability structures since the initiative was first launched? Will he set out what discussions he has had with international partners on contributing their skilled and experienced staff to an international team of experts that can be deployed more widely? I welcomed the UK’s commitment to increase funding to the UN Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on whether other countries have followed the UK’s lead in increasing funding for this office?

The Foreign Secretary covered some specific countries of concern. Despite our well rehearsed disagreement with the Government on the Prime Minister’s attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit last month, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s efforts to raise the issue of preventing sexual violence on the agenda while he was there. During his visit, he emphasised that the UK was ready to offer more assistance and co-operation to the Sri Lankan Government to tackle this issue. What response has he received from the Sri Lankan Government since the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to those offers and how he plans to take this work forward?

In response to a written question in October, the Government confirmed that Burma has now been added to the list of countries, despite being omitted from the original list. Will the Foreign Secretary explain the reason for not including Burma as part of the initiative when it was first launched?

The Foreign Secretary spoke about the work that is being done today by the UK’s team of experts on the Syrian borders. Can he provide any more details about the nature of the work, and whether there are plans for support to be given to those in need in Syria itself? Will he also say whether he raised this issue with the Syrian National Coalition when it was in London last month?

The Government have taken important steps to help to raise this issue on the international stage and we pay generous tribute to their efforts to do so. Where they continue to pursue steps to help tackle this pervasive and deplorable abuse of human rights, they can rest assured that they will have the Opposition’s support in their endeavours.

[Mr Hague]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for this initiative and our work on it in recent months. It is one of those subjects on which cross-party support, pursued consistently by all of us, is very important and helps to make a big impact on the rest of the world. I know that feelings on this will be appropriately strong among all political parties in the House.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the campaigning organisations. I mentioned that I envisaged the summit giving a big role to civil society, and that certainly includes all the organisations he mentioned. I have often stressed how our efforts build on the good work done at the UN and by non-governmental organisations around the world. I am pleased to say that many of those NGOs sit on the PSVI steering board that I have established, so they advise me directly on the development of this initiative. This afternoon, I will also be meeting organisations like Amnesty—it sits on our human rights advisory group, which also discusses these subjects. NGOs and other campaigning groups are thus fully involved in this initiative, and I value their support enormously.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that this is the least-prosecuted crime. That, of course, is what we are trying to change: shattering the culture of impunity is our central objective. We want to break into that and show that prosecutions can take place. We have more than 70 people—doctors, lawyers, forensic experts, experts in gender-based violence—in our very impressive team of experts. They have deployed in much smaller numbers—they have other jobs in their areas of expertise—to various countries, some of which I listed in my statement. For example, we have deployed a team to Libya to assess how best to engage with civil society and women’s organisations there, while the basic infantry training we provide to Libyan troops will incorporate a sexual violence element. As I mentioned, we are doing the same in Mali.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Burma. We are providing support to legal assistance centres in Burmese refugee camps in Thailand and to trauma care camps in Kachin state, both of which deal with rape cases. Our embassy in Rangoon is currently considering how we can do more in Burma, and we are also promoting legal reforms that address and deter sexual violence.

We have done a lot of work on the Syrian borders, supporting the collection of evidence of human rights violations and abuses, including of sexual violence. We have trained more than 300 Syrian journalists and activists in documenting and exposing human rights abuses, including crimes of sexual violence. These are examples of the support our team of experts are providing.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about funds for the special representative. We have been the most generous of countries in recent years, but other countries have given additional funding—not many of them on the same scale as us, but I continue to encourage them to do more.

On Sri Lanka, yes we secured the commitment in the Commonwealth communiqué, which I have to point out we could not have done had we not been there. While I was in Sri Lanka, I also gave a public speech on preventing sexual violence in conflict that was widely reported in the Sri Lankan media—on the television and across the newspapers—so I think we drew the attention of a far wider audience in Sri Lanka to this subject. I discussed with the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka specific support for our initiative, and we await their reply on whether they will support it. Of course, there are aspects that the Sri Lankan Government will find difficult to sign up to, which is why it is important to put it to them and to continue putting it to them. We can only do that, however, if we meet them, which we would not have done had we followed the right hon. Gentleman’s advice.

That, however, is our one disagreement. Otherwise, of course, there is strong cross-party unity on this issue, and I look forward to Opposition Members as well as Government Members playing a big role at next June’s global summit.

Iran

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it? He was generous to end his remarks by recognising the reality of the bipartisan approach that has been characteristic of this House and, indeed, this country to these issues over recent years, including the approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) when he was Foreign Secretary. Let me echo that and add that all those involved in the Geneva negotiations, including the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office officials, deserve real credit for their role in helping secure this deal.

In particular, the work of the European Union High Representative, Baroness Cathy Ashton, has been fundamental. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his statement—a little late, I would argue—she was “indispensable” to ensuring that agreement was finally reached. We on this side of the House feel a particular pride in the role that Baroness Ashton has played and the determination, skill and diplomatic perseverance she has shown, and we offer her our sincere congratulations.

The international community stands united in believing that if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, that would make the world less safe, so the deal agreed in Geneva was a necessary and important first step. Iran has, of course, over recent years proceeded apace with its enrichment programme despite repeated calls by the international community for it to stop.

This is not a perfect deal, nor is it guaranteed to lead to a comprehensive resolution, but, based on the Foreign Secretary’s statement, it appears to address a number of central concerns. First, it caps every aspect of Iran’s nuclear programme. Secondly, it includes strong verification mechanisms and measures. Thirdly, its text does not concede that Iran has an inalienable right to enrich. I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary about each of those three points.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the agreement does not call for the dismantlement of the Fordow plant, so will he set out what steps are envisaged to help ensure that that deeply buried facility will ultimately be decommissioned?

The Foreign Secretary referred to the heavy water research reactor at Arak. Although the deal specifies daily access for the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to Natanz and Fordow, it does not set out the frequency with which inspectors will have access to Arak, so will the Foreign Secretary give us further details of how they will gain access?

The Foreign Secretary did not mention Parchin in his statement, and neither did the final text of the agreement agreed yesterday, so will he now clarify whether the deal requires Iran to grant IAEA inspectors access to the Parchin military base, where Iran is suspected of carrying out tests related to the detonating of a nuclear weapon?

There has been much speculation over the past 24 hours about the absence from the final agreement of the phrase “right to enrich”. Will the Foreign Secretary set out the British Government’s understanding of whether that absence reflects a continuing point of difference between the P5 plus 1 and Iran, or whether the omission reflects a shared understanding on the issue?

Although an interim deal seeks to prevent Iran from developing its enrichment programme while talks are ongoing, it could also ease the pressure on Iran and, in fact, undermine the urgency with which a comprehensive resolution may be sought. Given that risk, will the Foreign Secretary set out how he intends to prevent that outcome and what steps he will take with others to continue negotiations on a comprehensive deal within the time frame that has been set out?

The announcement of $7 billion of sanctions relief, effective immediately, will be seen as a necessary step to secure the concessions agreed by Iran as part of the interim deal, but pressure must still be maintained. Will the Foreign Secretary offer the House assurances that the net effect of that sanctions relief will not exceed the projected amount?

As of yesterday, Iran’s so-called critical capability will be extended. That, of course, is welcomed by everyone in this House, but while the interim agreement sets Iran back, it does not prevent future progress. It would, of course, be far better to secure the end of all enrichment and to see the dismantling of all relevant facilities.

One key test of the interim agreement will be whether what has now been agreed in principle can be implemented in practice. That means keeping sanctions tight, verification intrusive and all options on the table. A second key test will be whether the interim agreement can, in the months ahead, be translated into a comprehensive agreement. That means building on this weekend’s agreement through urgent and sustained negotiations on a final resolution.

The interim agreement reached over the weekend will give us the time and flexibility to negotiate the much more difficult and complex final agreement to dismantle much of Iran’s nuclear programme. The Government can be assured that they will have our support in pursuit of that objective in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the shadow Foreign Secretary for his clear support. There has indeed been a bipartisan approach for a long time, and it is clearly continuing in relation to this agreement.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say, as he did at the end of his remarks, that it is very important to keep sanctions tight and verification intrusive to maintain the confidence and the pressure needed to reach a comprehensive agreement. He is also right that no such agreement can be perfect—it is the product of negotiations and compromise—or guaranteed to lead to a comprehensive agreement, but in my judgment it is the only route to a comprehensive agreement.

Some have made the criticism that we should have concentrated on moving straight to a final and comprehensive agreement, but from everything that I have seen, I know that that would not have been possible, and while we negotiated such a comprehensive agreement, the progress of the Iranian programme, which has now been brought to a stop in many ways, would have continued. This is therefore a crucial step on the way to a comprehensive agreement and makes it possible to set about negotiating one.

The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. He asked about how the agreement relates to the plant at Fordow. The agreement specifically refers to that:

“Iran announces that it will not make any further advances of its activities at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant…, Fordow…or the Arak reactor”.

Footnote 2 on the second page of the agreement states in relation to Fordow that there should be

“no further enrichment over 5% at 4 cascades now enriching uranium”,

and no feeding of uranium hexafluoride into the other 12 cascades and so on. There are therefore specific requirements on that plant. As for each of the plants, its longer-term future, including whether it operates at all, will be up to the final and comprehensive agreement and must be addressed at that stage.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about inspections at Parchin. That remains a point of difference between the IAEA and Iran, including in their latest talks, and it is another aspect of the Iranian programme that must be addressed as part of a comprehensive and final settlement.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the urgency. On that, it is important to put the $7 billion of sanctions relief into perspective, because he referred to it as being effective immediately. The $7 billion of sanctions relief is actually available to Iran over the six-month period once that period has begun, which we hope will be by the end of January. A good deal of the $7 billion involves the unfreezing of assets, so those assets will be unfrozen in stages. Iran will not therefore receive $7 billion on the first day, and then decide whether to implement its side of the agreement.

It is also important to see that $7 billion in perspective. In January, Iran’s Oil Minister acknowledged that the fall in oil exports as a result of sanctions was costing Iran between $4 billion and $8 billion every month. Reports suggest that Iran currently has between $60 billion and $100 billion of assets frozen overseas that it cannot access. The $7 billion of relief is therefore a very small proportion of the total frozen assets and of the total effect of sanctions applied to Iran.

That is why I have said that how we apply sanctions relief leaves Iran with a huge incentive, since it wants wider relief from sanctions, to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement. That will help to maintain the urgency, but of course all our diplomatic activity—seeking to maintain the momentum behind the agreement, and to ensure that it is implemented and that we can go on to negotiate a comprehensive settlement—will also convey that urgency. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we will leave no stone unturned to try to bring that about.

Iran and Syria

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this afternoon? On Iran, may I echo the tribute he paid generously to the efforts of Baroness Ashton, who played a crucial role in driving forward these latest talks, and pay tribute to the clear commitment shown by all the P5 plus 1 Ministers in attendance at Geneva? I admit that I was somewhat perplexed to see the Foreign Secretary here at 9.30 am on Friday, but he was right then to make the journey to Geneva.

Labour remains of the view that a nuclear-armed Iran poses a real threat, not just to Israel, but to regional and international security. Therefore, we believe that the United Kingdom Government should continue to pursue the twin-track approach of sanctions and diplomacy. President Rouhani campaigned, and was subsequently elected in June, on a platform of taking the necessary steps to ease the pressure of the sanctions that are currently putting the Iranian economy under strain, so I do believe that sanctions have been effective and continue to be important. However, alongside continued sanctions sustained diplomatic engagement remains key, so I welcome the news of the Government’s announcement that a chargé d’affaires has now been appointed and hope that the British embassy in Tehran will be reopened as soon as it is safe and practical to do so.

The Foreign Secretary said that he cannot go into the details of the negotiations while talks are ongoing, so today I will focus my questions on the outcome of the talks rather than the substance of the deal under discussion. Reports emerging over the weekend described a French veto that prevented any deal from being signed, yet Secretary Kerry was quoted this morning as saying:

“The French signed off on it, we signed off on it, and everybody agreed it was a fair proposal…Iran couldn’t take it at that particular moment; they weren’t able to accept.”

In the light of the somewhat conflicting reports, will the Foreign Secretary set out whether there was unity among the P5 plus 1 and say a little more about the basis on which he has just told the House that such a deal is on the table and that there is no doubt that it can be reached?

It is inevitable and, indeed, understandable that as the outline of such a deal begins to emerge it will increasingly be called into question by those parties that have so much at stake. In the light of that reaction, will the Foreign Secretary set out what assurances have been offered to regional partners, particularly Israel, who are concerned that the principle of an interim deal will, by definition, not provide sufficient guarantees that Iran will cease all activity that could contribute to it developing a nuclear weapons capacity?

Let me turn to the issue of Syria. The humanitarian situation in Syria remains desperate and continues to deteriorate. Clearly, the most effective way to ease the suffering in Syria is to end the war, but while efforts to broker a peace deal continue it is vital that the international community lives up to its responsibility to protect those most in need. I welcome the important work that the UK Government have been doing, but despite the UK’s contribution, the UN appeal is still less than half-funded. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore set out what steps the Government will be taking to try to help ensure that other donors deliver on their unfulfilled pledges?

Since the last time the Foreign Secretary addressed the House on the issue, the OPCW has confirmed that Syria’s declared equipment for producing, mixing and filling chemical weapons has now been destroyed. Syria now has until mid-2014 to destroy the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons. Given that the OPCW team confirmed that it was not able to visit two of the 23 chemical weapons sites in Syria, as they were simply too dangerous, will the Foreign Secretary say what assurances are being sought for the protection of OPCW personnel who are due to carry out further work in conflict zones across the country?

The biggest breakthrough that is needed to most improve the situation on the ground is a diplomatic initiative. As the Foreign Secretary stated, women will have a key role to play in peace talks and in rebuilding and reconciling Syrian society as the conflict concludes. It is welcome that the SNC has today voted to accept the invitation to attend Geneva II as the representative of the Syrian opposition, but that acceptance is, as the Foreign Secretary has just told us, conditional on Assad and those with blood on their hands having no role in a transition and on the provision of humanitarian access and the release of detainees ahead of the conference being convened. In the light of those specific conditions, will the Foreign Secretary set out his assessment of the likelihood of those conditions being met according to the timetable of the year’s end set out by Lakhdar Brahimi?

In the light of his most recent discussions with representatives of the Iranian regime, will the Foreign Secretary also tell us the British Government’s policy on Iran’s participation in any Geneva II conference before the end of the year? Geneva II still offers the best prospect for securing a more stable future for the people of Syria, so the Government will have the Opposition’s support in their efforts to try to bring about this long-delayed but much-needed conference.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s overall support for our twin-track approach on Iran and our efforts to ensure diplomatic success in bringing together a peace conference on Syria.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Iranian nuclear negotiations. It is not right to speak of any veto on the negotiations by any of the E3 plus 3, or P5 plus 1, countries. The position put to Iran by all of us together in the final hours of the discussions on Friday and Saturday had been amended in the light of comments from various of the parties concerned, but it is entirely permissible for members of the E3 plus 3 to put forward their own comments, amendments and positions. There are six sovereign nations involved—as well as the Iranians, who will put forward their positions, of course. A completely united position was put to the Iranians at the close of our discussions, so reports of vetoes by one country, or of obstruction by any country, should be seen in that light. We were all arguing for the same position and the same deal.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what assurances we had given to other countries, and referred to Israel’s concerns about the concept of making an interim deal, rather than going straight to a comprehensive final settlement. We have discussed that. During the talks, I spoke to the Israeli Minister responsible for international relations and security, Mr Yuval Steinitz, and this weekend, the Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu, to give them our assurances and state our confidence in this kind of agreement.

It has to be faced that attempts to go straight to a comprehensive final settlement would be dramatically more difficult than even this process, and it is quite evident from events over the weekend that this process is difficult enough. An interim agreement would be designed to give us the time and space to negotiate a comprehensive final agreement—time during which Iran would take concrete actions in relation to its nuclear programme, in order to give greater assurance and confidence to the international community, and we would offer proportionate and limited sanctions relief in return, but the pressure would still be there to conclude a comprehensive final settlement. There are concerns about this, but all of us in the E3 plus 3 countries believe that this is the most effective and practical way to reach a settlement with Iran.

On the question about humanitarian relief, the UK has been very active, as the House knows, including through the meeting that the Prime Minister convened at the G20 and all our diplomatic efforts around that, in getting other nations to step up their humanitarian assistance. About $1 billion of additional assistance has, one way or another, been associated with the efforts that we have made. We will continue to make those efforts, but that appeal is $2 billion underfunded for this year, and of course we are in the middle of November and approaching the time for another UN appeal. We will strongly support the donor conference that has been called in Kuwait for the middle of January. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who was in the Chamber a moment ago, is working very hard to help bring that together.

The chemical weapons inspectors have now, one way or another, inspected all 23 sites, but of course their security during the continuing work is important. That has to be taken into account in the decision that the OPCW executive council needs to adopt by 15 November —this Friday. The decision is still under negotiation, but it is expected to set out the detailed requirements, including intermediate milestones, for the complete elimination of chemical weapons in Syria in the first half of 2014.

On the stipulations made by the National Coalition regarding their support for the Geneva II process, I do not believe that they need to be obstacles to assembling a Geneva II peace conference. The statement—it is a view that we share—that Assad cannot be part of a transitional authority formed by mutual consent is not surprising. Any authority formed by mutual consent in Syria is unlikely to include those whom the other side regard as having very extensive blood on their hands. The calls for humanitarian assistance and humanitarian access, and for prisoners to be released, are calls that we should all be able to support in any case, so I do not think that those things should be seen as making a Geneva II conference more difficult. We now need the regime to respond in the same spirit.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the inclusion of Iran in the talks. We believe that the starting point for a Geneva II conference is the outcome of Geneva I last year, and that all parties to the talks should be able to accept that. I continue to urge Iran to adopt that position; it would make it much easier for the rest of the world to embrace it in the talks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend played a distinguished role in the eminent persons group report. It is a pity that not every aspect of that report was adopted by the Commonwealth as we debated it over the last couple of years, although the charter for the Commonwealth was agreed, as was a more active role for the Commonwealth ministerial action group. We will continue to raise these issues in the Commonwealth.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Just a moment or two ago, the Foreign Secretary said, in relation to human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, that he will be taking up these issues when he travels there. However, in answer to a written question in July, the Foreign Office stated that they “expect progress” in human rights and post-conflict reconciliation in the run-up to the summit in November. Despite writing to the Minister responsible to follow up on that answer, we have not yet received a reply. Will the Foreign Secretary set out now what specific progress on the two key benchmarks identified by the Government has been made since July?

[Mr Hague]

First, I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being appointed Labour’s campaign co-ordinator for the next general election. As he ran its last general election campaign and David Miliband’s leadership election campaign, we on the Government Benches are delighted with the appointment, even if it makes him a slightly part-time shadow Foreign Secretary.

There have been some steps forward in Sri Lanka, which we have to recognise, including the northern provincial council elections that took place in September. They were generally peaceful and well-regarded, but all the issues I listed remain. While there have been some steps forward, many more are needed.

[Mr Alexander]

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is mounting evidence that Sri Lanka is heading in the wrong direction? It is not simply that these issues “remain”. This month, the Foreign Affairs Committee criticised the

“scant evidence of progress in political and human rights”.

In August, the UN human rights commissioner said that Sri Lanka was

“heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction”,

and even the Government’s own 2012 human rights report warned of “negative developments”. The Prime Minister’s announcement six months ahead of the summit has proved both a misjudgment and a missed opportunity. Will the Foreign Secretary, even at this late stage, urge the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision to confirm his attendance at the summit?

[Mr Hague]

No. There are many serious criticisms, including in our own reports, of the human rights record in Sri Lanka. Of course these are issues that we want to take up in Sri Lanka, but the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting will consider matters such as the future of the millennium development goals, expanding international trade and upholding human rights in other parts of the world. We need to be present at those discussions with a quarter of the globe. We also need to recognise that the consequences for the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom not attending a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting would be very serious and could be long term. That is why it is important, and that is why we decided to be there at the table, as well as raising the concerns so well expressed in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Last week, I had the great privilege of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi, following her discussions with Government Ministers. She impressed upon me the urgency of the international community seeking to put pressure on the Burmese Government to reform the constitution in Burma. I would be grateful if the Foreign Secretary would set out what steps the Government anticipate taking to achieve that goal.

[Mr Hague]

Aung San Suu Kyi was very clear about these things in all the meetings she had, including the one with EU Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg last Monday. These are issues that we have taken up for some time with the Government in Burma, including directly with President Thein Sein on his visit to the UK earlier this year. Of course, we are continuing to raise them, as there is an urgency about constitutional change ahead of elections in Burma in 2015. So we will continue to raise them over the coming weeks directly with Burmese Ministers.

Middle East Peace Process/Syria and Iran

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it? I would like to start by welcoming the newly appointed Minister for the middle east, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson). I know that Members on both sides will wish to join me in recognising his significant achievement in helping deliver the London Olympics and I am sure that he will continue to bring the same level of commitment and, indeed, skill to his new role in the Foreign Office.

May I also take a moment to pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? He is a man whose obvious talent, commitment and decency—qualities that are recognised and appreciated by many in this House—have not gone unnoticed by Members over recent years. He is a very significant loss to the Government and in all my dealings with him on the middle east I admired his skill, intellect and consistently courteous approach.

This month’s United Nations General Assembly was a moment where real progress needed to be made most urgently on the issue of Syria. Of course I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s call for further action on securing free and unfettered humanitarian access in the country and I welcome the Government’s announcement of an additional £100 million in humanitarian aid for Syria. But sadly, despite this significant additional UK contribution, the UN appeal after the UN General Assembly is still only 44 per cent. funded. Can the Foreign Secretary set out what steps the Government will take now to try to help to ensure that other donors turn unfulfilled pledges into cash commitments?

Since that General Assembly meeting last month, the destruction and disabling of missile warheads, aerial bombs and mixing and filling units within Syria has thankfully now begun. In particular, I want to commend the work of the British personnel working as part of the team carrying out this difficult and dangerous work on the ground in Syria.

Given that this is the first time that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has been tasked with overseeing the destruction of chemical weapons armoury during a live conflict, can the Foreign Secretary provide any further details about how the mission is likely to proceed in the coming months? In particular can he offer the House any guidance with respect to negotiating access to sites currently within rebel-held areas of Syria?

On the middle east peace process, Secretary Kerry’s efforts to restart the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians deserve both our praise and our support. Delivering the necessary compromises from all sides will surely be a task aided by the active involvement of the United States. Can the Foreign Secretary clarify what role US special envoy Martin Indyk is playing in the substantive negotiations? When I recently met President Abbas, he emphasised the nine-month timeframe for these talks. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what progress would have to be made before March 2014 in order to justify a decision to continue negotiations beyond that allotted timetable?

Let me now turn to the issue of Iran. Back in August, I described the Government’s decision not to send ministerial representation to the inauguration of the new Iranian President as a misjudgment and a missed opportunity. At the start of September, I pressed the Foreign Secretary on the possibility of establishing a Syrian contact group, with Iran as a key member. Later last month, I pressed the Government on whether the Foreign Secretary would look to reopen the British embassy in Tehran as soon as it was practical and safe to do so. The Government appeared to give little consideration to these proposals when I first suggested them.

Today the Foreign Secretary cited his meeting with Foreign Minister Zarif and the letter dispatched by the Prime Minister to President Rouhani. While I welcome these recent decisions, I regret that it took so long for these important steps eventually to be taken. In recent months the Government appear to have misjudged their response to the signals emerging from Tehran, and as a result the UK risks being left behind by the absence of a clear strategy towards Iran. Disagreements not just over Iran’s nuclear ambitions but over domestic and international actions by the Iranian regime are profound, and cannot and should not be overlooked. However, it is vital that Iran continues to be encouraged to play a more constructive role, and the UK Government should be doing more to help to facilitate this change. In the light of this, I welcome today’s announcement of a chargé d’affaires having been appointed, but can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that this is an interim step on the way to establishing full diplomatic relations?

Labour remains of the view that the UK Government should maintain pressure on the Iranian regime to change its approach to nuclear enrichment. However, notwithstanding the decades-long difficulties in the bilateral relationship between Iran and the United States, it has, alas, been the American Administration, and not the British Government, who have better understood the signals and made the decisive advances towards improved relations with Iran. On Iran, it is time for the Government to catch up with our American allies.

[Mr Hague]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s initial questions relating to Syria, I think it will be the view across the House that free and unfettered access is of huge importance. He is right to say that the UN appeal for funds is currently 44% funded. As the House heard from my statement, we have done a great deal to make sure that some of that 44% is in place, and we are making a huge contribution ourselves. Our embassies and the Department for International Development’s ministerial team are engaged in a non-stop effort to build up the contributions from other countries. There is now the commitment to a pledging conference, which we hope will take place in Kuwait in January and which is the major international event to work towards in gathering greater contributions for the future.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about the OPCW and how it will proceed, all the known sites for the holding of chemical weapons in Syria are within regime-held territory. We are not aware of the opposition being in possession of chemical weapons, so of course this work is focused, revealingly, entirely on the regime-held areas. What is meant to happen now, according to the timetable that has been established, is that all sites should have been inspected by the 27th of this month; that the regime’s production and mixing and filling equipment in relation to chemical weapons should be destroyed in the next few weeks, by 1 November; and that the details of how to proceed with eliminating all the material and other equipment will be decided by 15 November, with a view to the whole programme being completed in the first half of next year. It is an immense task, but it is good that the OPCW has arrived in Syria and that at the weekend the destruction began of some of the munitions involved. Of course, we will continue to watch this closely, and that includes, as I say, standing ready to provide further expertise as necessary.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about the peace process, obviously the United States has a central role in this, including the United States special envoy. Many of the meetings—the seven rounds of negotiations so far—have been taking place on a bilateral basis, but it is envisaged that there will be closer American participation in those meetings over the coming weeks.

The ambition is to resolve the issues, including the final status issues, within six to nine months. That is the timetable to which the parties are working. It is too early to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about what happens after March 2014.

On Iran, I hope there are no differences across the House about the direction of policy. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to catch up with other countries, but perhaps it is time for him to catch up with what the Government have actually been doing. I assure him and the House that there is no difference of view or approach between the United States, the United Kingdom and, indeed, other western allies. We are in different positions on diplomatic relations because some European countries still have embassies in Tehran. Their embassies were not overrun as ours was in 2011. By contrast, as is well known, the United States has not been in that situation for a very long time—since 1979. Of course there are differences between different countries, but all of us are trying to encourage the opening up by Iran, which the Iranian Ministers are presenting. There is no lack of attention to that.

It has been a long time since any British Foreign Secretary—we would have to go back to the days of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), as we frequently do on these subjects—had as many discussions in the space of a few days with the Foreign Minister of Iran. It is vital that our work to improve the functioning of our bilateral relations takes place on a step-by-step and reciprocal basis. Recently, even getting unhindered access for locally engaged staff to inspect and check up on our embassy premises has remained a very difficult matter, so the House will understand that building up trust and co-operation will be necessary before it will be possible to open an embassy again. We are, therefore, doing that on a step-by-step, reciprocal basis. I do not believe it would be responsible to approach it in a different way. It has been welcomed so far by the Iranian Foreign Ministry, as evidenced by today’s agreement on appointing a non-resident chargé for both countries. That opens the way to further improvements, as I said in my statement, including a view in the future to the full reopening of both embassies, but that will depend on the mutual building of confidence, good co-operation and trust, which has, of course, been missing in the past.

Syria

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and indeed for advance sight of it this morning. Coming to the House ahead of the parliamentary recess acknowledges that there are strongly held opinions and deeply felt concerns on both sides of the House about events still unfolding in Syria.

I welcome the Government’s steps to provide vital humanitarian support to those affected by the conflict and the continuing efforts to secure additional funds from the international community. Those humanitarian efforts are necessary but insufficient to alleviate the suffering. The level of ongoing violence in Syria today represents the greatest diplomatic failure of the international community in the 21st century. We support the Government’s continuing efforts to convene a second Geneva conference, but we remain of the view that a contact group could assist in that endeavour, given the present difficulties in securing the attendance of the warring parties.

Members on both sides of the House stand united in their revulsion at and abhorrence and condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in this ongoing and bloody conflict. It is a conflict that means that Syria is disintegrating as a nation state. That disintegration risks destabilising not only Syria’s immediate neighbours but the region as a whole.

Two weeks ago, the votes of this House on Syria reflected real concerns that the country was being pushed too quickly towards military action, on a timetable set elsewhere, without due process being followed and the necessary steps being taken. Moments after the Government motion was lost—a rejection of the Government’s rushed judgment in relation to the use of British military force without precedent since perhaps the case of Lord North in 1782—the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and read from a sheet of paper the following words:

“It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly.”—[Official Report, 29 August 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1555.]

The suggestion has since been made that the decisive voice influencing the Prime Minister’s apparently predetermined decision to rule out the use of British military force in Syria if the Government motion was lost was not that of the Foreign Secretary but that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, in his capacity as Foreign Secretary, can the right hon. Gentleman offer the House any examples of circumstances in which the Government will seek to come back to the House on the issue of the use of British military force in Syria? The Foreign Secretary has just told the House: “The United Kingdom will make every effort to negotiate an enforceable agreement”, so he clearly agrees with me that it is preferable, if it is possible, to remove the threat of chemical weapons from Syria without having to resort to the use of force.

Two days after those votes were cast in the House of Commons, President Obama specifically referenced the British Government’s failure to secure the support of Parliament when explaining his decision to delay the use of force in Syria and indeed to take the matter to Congress, so I ask the Foreign Secretary this question. Is it not abundantly clear that if the Government’s motion had been passed by this House two weeks ago, the United States military force would in all likelihood have already been used in Syria and the diplomatic path that he now advocates with such conviction would never have been reached?

None of us has any doubt about the murderous nature of the Assad regime, and no one should have any illusions about the fact that since the start of this conflict the Russians have provided not only weaponry but significant diplomatic cover to the Assad regime. The challenge confronting Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov today in Geneva is indeed daunting. Their task is to find ways to evidence that a goal that is desirable is also doable. That would mean agreeing a credible plan in circumstances not just of low trust but of violent conflict; a means to identify, verify, secure and ultimately remove those weapons from Assad’s possession, with the final goal of destroying them altogether. While these critical negotiations are taken forward, the UK must continue its work to help alleviate the suffering and engage constructively with partners in the Security Council.

[Mr Hague]

There is strong agreement about everything I said in my statement, judging by what the right hon. Gentleman said, although disagreement about one thing that was not in the statement, which I will come back to.

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that there is strong unity across the House on the importance of our humanitarian contribution. He said that everything that we and other countries were doing was necessary but not sufficient to alleviate the suffering. That, sadly, is true, because only the end of the conflict will truly alleviate or give us the opportunity to alleviate the suffering of millions of people. He rightly welcomed the diplomatic efforts that we continue to make on bringing about a second Geneva conference. There is no shortage of discussion in the international community about how to do this. We have regular discussions with all our colleagues on the Security Council, including Russia, about how to bring it about. Ideas are floated about different diplomatic groups that might bring this about, but the essence of the problem remains that we need all appropriate parties to be ready to fulfil what was agreed at Geneva. There is no evidence that the regime is in a position to do that as things stand, but we will continue to work on that.

I take what the right hon. Gentleman said as agreement in the House on the approach to the negotiations now taking place about an international agreement on chemical weapons. He said that a credible plan was needed in an atmosphere of low trust and violent conflict. That is correct, and it strikes the same note as the one that I was striking—that we must take this seriously and make every effort to make it successful, but that to be successful it has to be an enforceable agreement that credibly, reliably and promptly deals with this issue and places the regime’s chemical weapons stocks under international control for destruction.

I need to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about only one thing that he said, which is a rather extraordinary claim that none of this would have come about had the Opposition not voted against the Government motion two weeks ago, which is a rather self-obsessed view of world developments. It is like the story of the cockerel who thought its crowing brought about the dawn. He will remember that the motion we put before the House said that, far from being in a rush, the Government would await the report of the UN inspectors, which has not yet come out, before taking any military action, that they would make every effort to secure a Security Council resolution, and that there would be a second vote. That is the basis on which the United Kingdom was proceeding, and there is no sign at all that this development would have taken place had Governments around the world not been debating those issues and had the United States not been debating whether to take military action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I do not believe that to be the intention of the United States. President Obama has made his purpose very clear, but in any case he has now referred this to the United States Congress so I think we have to allow, as the US Administration has called for, the US Congress to make its decision. We had our vote last week, and the US Congress will have its vote, but President Obama is very clear that any action proposed by the United States would be to deter the further use of chemical weapons. I think we can take him at his word on that, and I am not going to criticise him for putting that forward.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Let me return to the diplomatic initiatives the Foreign Secretary mentioned. Will he first offer the House an assurance that the British Government will be urging the attendance of Lakhdar Brahimi at the G20 meeting in order to facilitate a discussion that many of us would judge necessary on Syria? Secondly, will he consider the establishment of a Syrian contact group so that not just Iran but Russia and, indeed, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could, as principal sponsors of the respective sides of this conflict, be engaged in trying to find a way towards Geneva?

[Mr Hague]

To be clear, we expect the discussion on Syria at the G20 to be in a series of bilateral meetings. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the formal agenda of the G20 is set by Russia working with the rest of the G20 and is about a wide range of trading and economic issues. But Syria will dominate the bilateral meetings during the G20, and we would expect it to do so. Of course, we want Mr Brahimi to be involved; we usually facilitate and support his involvement in all critical discussions that take place around the world on these matters, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember the point about the bilateral meetings in St Petersburg, and we continue to work with the core group of the Friends of Syria to promote dialogue in Syria, to try to bring about a peaceful settlement. Ultimately, as other hon. Members have said, there has to be a political solution, and so, of course, we will continue with that work.

[Mr Alexander]

I think that the House will be disappointed by an admission from the Foreign Secretary that Lakhdar Brahimi will apparently not be in attendance in St Petersburg and nor will this be on the formal agenda of the grouping of the 20 countries. May I urge the Foreign Secretary to consider requesting the Russian Government to place the issue of Syria at the top of the multilateral agenda? Secondly, does he not accept that there is a fundamental difference between Friends of Syria—those only supporting the rebels—and a contact group, which would contain parties to both sides of the conflict?

[Mr Hague]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does understand, from experience, how these meetings are conducted; it is in the bilateral meetings that Syria will be a dominant issue in St Petersburg—and should be. The Prime Minister will, of course, be pursuing it at every possibility and through every channel in St Petersburg, as he has done and as I have done in a whole series of bilateral and multilateral meetings in the past few months. Our problem is not being unable to discuss these things in the international community; it is being unable to agree how we bring about a transitional Government in Syria, formed from the Government and the opposition by mutual consent. There is no shortage of venues and platforms for discussing those things—we have had two and a half years of discussion on this; it is agreement that is elusive, not a forum for discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely—I give my right hon. Friend that assurance. Notwithstanding the vote last week, the United Kingdom remains highly active in many ways, as we have already discussed in questions, including through our humanitarian assistance and our diplomatic work, in pushing forward the middle east peace process, in our determination to bring about a political settlement in Syria, and in helping the stability of Lebanon and Jordan. The United Kingdom must always play a strong role in international affairs, including by helping to bring stability to the middle east.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

A few moments ago, the Foreign Secretary mentioned his support for the drafting of a new constitution in Egypt. What is the view of the British Government on recent reports that the interim Government in Egypt are considering a ban on the Muslim Brotherhood?

[Mr Hague]

I merely referred to the fact that the constitution is being drafted, rather than expressing my support for it; we will have to see what is in it. Attempts in Egypt and elsewhere to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood will be a mistake in the long term. Quite apart from the obvious considerations about human rights and democracy, I do not think that they will bring long-term stability to Egypt. It is important that Egypt’s democracy is inclusive. Egyptian leaders, in a very polarised society, have to find a way towards that. We hope that the constitution will be drafted in an inclusive way that allows for a participatory democracy in which a wide range of views can be represented.

Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it.

I come first to events in Egypt. Although the events of the past two weeks have been a major setback for democracy, they need not represent an irreversible trend. The role of the military in any democracy must be both clearly defined and subject to Executive oversight, so the priority must now be a return to civilian rule through a credible transition process that results in swift, fair and free elections. I welcome the recent statement by interim president Mansour setting a deadline for new elections to be held before February 2014. However, recent reports suggest that not all parties have accepted that process, and there have been recent statements from the Muslim Brotherhood apparently refusing to take part. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is vital that the transition process from interim to full civilian government must be inclusive and representative if it is to be seen to be legitimate?

Recent reports of the arrest and imprisonment of political activists, representatives and journalists in Egypt are deeply concerning, including reports today about Egypt’s prosecutor’s office issuing warrants for a number of people affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Will the Foreign Secretary make clear the British Government’s position on political prisoners in Egypt?

Egypt’s long-term future will be secured not simply by an end to violence but also by the start of economic recovery. The Foreign Secretary spoke of the Deauville partnership. How much of the $38 billion originally intended from that fund, as cited in his answer to me in October 2011, has now been allocated? If he cannot give the figure this afternoon, will he place a note in the Library setting out the allocation figures?

I turn to the ongoing crisis in Syria. I welcome, of course, the confirmation of the uplift in the UK’s commitment to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis, but the situation is none the less deteriorating. Only this morning, the Intelligence and Security Committee published a report that expresses “serious concern” about al-Qaeda elements gaining access to the “vast stockpiles” of chemical weapons within Syria. It is therefore a matter of real regret that the recent G8 summit in Northern Ireland, hosted by the United Kingdom, failed to deliver the breakthrough that we all wanted to see in relation to Syria. We all hoped that a firm date would be set for the start of Geneva 2, but even that was missing from the final communiqué. Will the Foreign Secretary set out a little more specifically what he judges the prospects to be for Geneva 2 being convened in the weeks and months ahead? I welcome his commitment that the Prime Minister intends to recall Parliament and call for a vote on a substantive motion if any decision is taken by the Government to send lethal military equipment to the Syrian opposition.

May I ask the Foreign Secretary about Jordan? It seemed a curious omission from his statement. Jordan has been a long-standing ally of the United Kingdom. I am aware that humanitarian support is being provided to Za’atari and other camps in Jordan. May I press him on what consideration the Government are giving to what other practical assistance and support can be provided to Jordan, beyond humanitarian support? The country is feeling the strain, given the extraordinary generosity it has shown during the crisis.

On the middle east peace process, we welcome the recent efforts by US Secretary of State John Kerry to bring parties together and reinvigorate the stalled talks. On departing from Israel last week, after the last of his five visits to the region alone this year, Secretary Kerry spoke of important, though not irreversible, progress that has already been made. We welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement of support for this process, but will he set out what specific steps the British Government are taking to ensure that negotiations are urgently begun as part of Secretary Kerry’s efforts?

These negotiations take place at a time of great upheaval and uncertainty in the wider region. We welcome the election of President Rohani, but there are key steps he must now be prepared to take if the ongoing nuclear crisis is to be resolved. I echo the sentiments expressed by the Foreign Secretary: a nuclear-armed Iran is not simply a threat to Israel, but a risk to all nations. The Government will have our support in pushing the E5 plus 1 talks that have regrettably so far not yielded sufficient progress.

In conclusion, the Foreign Secretary’s statement comes at a time of almost unprecedented uncertainty across the middle east and north Africa. This transformative time of upheaval, revolution and conflict poses fundamental questions not just for the Foreign Secretary, but for policy makers across the region. That should therefore add to the urgency of efforts being made to try to resolve the ongoing and apparently intractable conflicts that have for too long defined the history of the region.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. On most if not all these subjects, there is strong agreement across the Floor of the House.

I absolutely agree with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put the Opposition’s attitude on Egypt. What has happened may be a setback for democracy, but it need not be an irreversible trend. That is absolutely right. He is right to point out that some parties in Egypt have not agreed to the timetable of parliamentary and presidential elections set out by the new president in the constitutional declaration. In fact, worryingly, most of them have not agreed, including the National Salvation Front, which was one of the prime movers behind last week’s events. There were widespread objections to the details of the announcement. As he said, this cannot be resolved in any other way than an inclusive legitimate process inside Egypt. We therefore call on all parties to do that.

It would be a terrible mistake for the authorities in Egypt to act in a way that drives the Muslim Brotherhood, or any other legitimate party, out of democratic politics. That mistake must be avoided at all costs. It would also be a mistake, however, for the Muslim Brotherhood to now refuse, under all circumstances, to take part in democratic politics in the months and years ahead. All nations who hold dear the stability and future of Egypt, as we do, have to encourage people, whether the Muslim Brotherhood or the new authorities, to resolve these differences and counsel against making those mistakes. Part of that is about releasing prisoners. I agree about that and I made that point to the acting Foreign Minister of Egypt. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, pursued the point with the Egyptian ambassador just this morning. Prisoners should be released unless criminal charges are to be laid. The holding of prisoners for political purposes after these events does not help the process.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Deauville partnership. I am happy to provide to him, or to the Library, more details. The $38 billion was not a fund, but the total financing from all global institutions available to the countries of the region if and when they pursue economic policies that give them access to it. One of the problems of the outgoing Government in Egypt was that they did not agree an IMF programme, and therefore did not win international financial support. The part of the Deauville partnership that involves funds that can be given away is much smaller. We have been determined, during our presidency of the G8, to make a tangible difference, and this year the Deauville partnership transition fund has started to deliver practical support. Projects of more than $100 million have been approved, and these principally support the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. This is the part that is a fund, but potential international financing is vastly greater, if the right economic reforms are undertaken.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on Iran. Again, I think there is strong agreement across the House and support for a further round of E3 plus 3 negotiations with its new Government. There is also strong agreement on the middle east peace process. I have set out in the House previously that we have to be ready, in the UK and in other European countries, once negotiations get going, to offer incentives or even disincentives at times during the negotiations for Israelis and Palestinians to try to make them a success, working with the United States. First, we have to get the negotiations going. We have been urging Israeli and Palestinian leaders to take the opportunity to work with John Kerry, stressing that there is no alternative. No one other than the United States has the necessary authority to bring Israel to the necessary agreements, to enter negotiations and make a success of them. Working with John Kerry is essential, and we await further announcements in the coming weeks.

On Syria and a date for Geneva, there is no date at the moment. After the G8, a trilateral meeting was held between the US, Russia and the UN in Geneva on 25 June, which again did not produce a date. The fundamental problem is that while the regime is engaged in military offences, as it is now in Homs, it does not have an incentive to come to meaningful negotiations, and neither is the opposition in a frame of mind to come to negotiations. Those military offences are making it harder for either party to come to Geneva.

Jordan was not an omission from my statement—I referred to our humanitarian assistance. I have also referred in the past to the other assistance we are giving Jordan. We have sent military equipment to help the Jordanian armed forces operate on the border, collecting refugees and bringing them to refugee camps. We have £1.5 million going to Jordan through our Arab Partnership fund to support civil society. We are in regular contact with Jordan. I spoke to the Jordanian Foreign Minister earlier this week, in particular to thank him for Jordan’s assistance with the recent mutual legal assistance treaty. I also made it clear to him that we are happy to give further assistance from the UK, if the Jordanians ask for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but it is possible to argue that in both directions. As I said a moment ago, it is important to have at Geneva sufficient groups and sufficient powers to be able to make a workable and sustainable settlement of the conflict in Syria, but there is a balance between that and including those powers or groups that would make a settlement to the conflict impossible. None of Iran’s actions to date on Syria has been in the interests of promoting a solution or political settlement.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has just reiterated the Government’s support for a Geneva II conference. Will he set out for the House whether he believes that the UK’s supplying arms to elements of the Syrian opposition would increase the likelihood of those talks taking place—or, indeed, succeeding—and how, if he and the Prime Minister decided to pursue that course of action, he would be able to provide assurances to the House on the likely end use of UK-supplied weapons?

[Mr Hague]

We have not taken any decision about that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. As he also knows, I have said in the House before that if we did so, it would be in certain circumstances: in conjunction with other countries, in carefully controlled circumstances and always in accordance with international law and our own national law. But we have taken no such decision to do so. We are clear that to save lives and promote a political solution it is necessary to give more support to the national coalition of the sort we have announced before in the House. That remains our position, and we believe it helps a political solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We always knew the Foreign Secretary was a brilliant man; now we know he is also psychic.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary said in answer to an earlier question that he would judge President-elect Rouhani on his actions. What specific actions will he be seeking from the Iranian regime and the newly elected Iranian President himself, in order for them to demonstrate in the months ahead a renewed commitment to resolving the nuclear crisis by peaceful and diplomatic means?

[Mr Hague]

There are two main aspects to that. One is to meet the International Atomic Energy Agency’s transparency requirements, some of which I mentioned in detail when answering the urgent question in the House yesterday. That includes addressing the issue of the heavy water reactor at Arak and meeting the requirements for information across a wide range of matters that the IAEA has set out. The other thing is to respond constructively to the offer from the E3 plus 3 that has been on the table since February, and which would allow us to make a very significant start to defusing the tensions over the nuclear issue and resolving it. The new Administration in Iran will be judged on those two things.

GCHQ

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

To conclude, all of us in this House have an interest in sustaining public confidence in the work of the intelligence agencies. Those agencies, each and every day, do outstanding work on behalf of and for the sake of us all. That is why Ministers and the ISC now have a heavy burden of responsibility to oversee and scrutinise their work, so as to reassure the public.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and pleased that he began his remarks by expressing the support and admiration across the House for the work of the intelligence agencies. Many former Ministers from the previous Government—indeed, there are some specific ones here today—know that well. He was right to say that the work of those agencies is among the most important and least recognised that goes into protecting this country, so there is strong common ground across the House on that.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we should be able, now and in future, to give people assurances about the law-abiding nature of the work of the agencies, which of course is a large part of the purpose of what I have just explained to the House. I am not saying that the agencies, anyone who works in them or, indeed, Ministers are incapable of error—that can happen in any organisation—but I am arguing that there is a strong system of checks and balances. A combination of ministerial oversight, independent scrutiny, parliamentary oversight, the legal framework and the strong ethical framework of the agencies themselves minimises the chance of errors happening in any sinister way.

Sometimes people can get the impression, when reading discussions in the media about this, that there is a danger of a “deep state” that is in some way out of control. There is not that danger in the United Kingdom. Of course everyone is capable of error, but the protection of this country’s citizens from such error is very strong indeed. I must stress that there will always be ways of improving procedures—many improvements have been made in recent years, under successive Administrations—and there are always new situations that arise in intelligence gathering that require additions to or the refinement of the legal basis of what we do and the practices and procedures by which we do that work. I do not argue at all that everything is definitely perfect, and certainly not for all time, with regard to whether in future there could be any improvements in procedures in some areas, because I am sure that there could be. The Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to look at that and make recommendations if it so wishes, and of course within the Government that is something that is constantly looked at and subject to change.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is no reason why the general public would be familiar with the framework I have set out for the House. I was the first Foreign Secretary to make a speech, in November 2011—it might have been widely unnoticed in the House—about the role of secret intelligence in foreign policy, in which I set out for the public what the guarantees are and what the legal framework is. This, in a way, is an opportunity to set that out clearly to the country.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that he supports information sharing with our allies. The position on the legal framework is exactly as I set out in my statement: any data obtained by us from the United States about UK nationals are subject to the full range of Acts, including section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the RIPA provisions, set out in sections 15 and 16, which regulate that information gathering must be necessary and proportionate and regulate how the agencies must handle information when they obtain it.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s further questions about how authority is given, I cannot give him, for reasons that I cannot explain in public, as detailed an answer as he would like. I would love to give him what could actually be a very helpful answer, but because circumstances and procedures vary according to the situation, I do not want to give a categorical answer—in a small respect circumstances might differ occasionally. But I can say that ministerial oversight and independent scrutiny is there, and there is scrutiny of the ISC in all these situations, so, again, the idea that operations are carried out without ministerial oversight, somehow getting around UK law, is mistaken. I am afraid that I cannot be more specific than that.

Mau Mau Claims (Settlement)

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it? However, may I begin my remarks by asking him about a procedural point: why, given a Minister’s obligation to the House and the importance of this announcement, were the details, including the wording of the statement of regret, the scale of the quantum agreed and details of the legal background to the settlement, all provided to the newspapers yesterday before they were to the House of Commons today? A full report appeared on The Guardian website at 6.42 yesterday evening and on The Times website at 7.30 yesterday evening. I hope that in his response the Foreign Secretary will offer the House a candid explanation as to why that occurred.

Let me turn to the substance of the matter in the Foreign Secretary’s statement. First, may I place on record the cross-party consensus that exists on this issue and offer my support for the Foreign Secretary’s efforts in seeing a legal settlement being agreed? Much has already been said of the suffering on all sides that lies at the heart of today’s announcements. On 20 October 1952, Governor Baring signed an order declaring a state of emergency in Kenya. The violence that followed, carried out by both sides in the conflict, has been well documented, not least thanks to the brave and tragic testimony of many survivors who lived through it. As the Foreign Secretary said, there were hundreds of casualties among the British soldiers, police and officials, but during the period of emergency in Kenya most of the victims and casualties were Kenyan, with many thousands of Mau Mau members killed, and thousands more imprisoned and displaced. It is therefore right that the Foreign Secretary recognised the challenges and dangers that British personnel in Kenya faced at that time, but the mass detention camps, the forced resettlement and the levels of brutality that characterised that period in Kenyan history must also be recognised. The numbers of dead and those not accounted for is, of course, still debated, but I think there is broad consensus in all parts of this House that the scale of the suffering was profound and deeply regrettable.

That is why I welcome today’s statement by the Foreign Secretary and want to echo his words acknowledging that Kenyans were tortured and mistreated by the colonial administration. I also want to support further today’s expression of deep regret and unreserved condemnation of those actions. The British Government are right to reflect on our country’s colonial past, not simply because the legacy of our past is still being felt today, but because we must look to history, learn its lessons and use them to help chart a course going forward. All parts of this House share an interest in seeing this issue resolved, which is why today I wish to put on record my support for the right hon. Gentleman’s work over recent months to press for a fair resolution as Foreign Secretary.

So we support the announcements made today in the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but I seek his clarification on a number of issues that arise as a result. First, could he confirm to the House which departmental budget is funding the £19.9 million of which he spoke, which makes up the full and final settlement announced today? Will he also set out what meetings his Department has had with representatives of the Mau Mau claimants, and could he update the House as to their collective view of and response to today’s announcement? Indeed, will he further explain what he anticipates will be the response of the Kenyan Government, in particular, to today’s announcement?

The British Government must continue, of course, to be categorical in their condemnation of torture and ill treatment, which are abhorrent violations of human dignity. It is right that current and future relations with Kenya are not overshadowed by the past. So, along with the Foreign Secretary, I hope that today’s announcement will encourage even stronger ties between our two nations going forward, despite, but not ignoring, our shared and, at times, troubled past.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that the cross-party approach is important. These claims were first made in 2009, under the last Government, and the last Government decided to contest them in the courts. That was the right decision, because all of us together contest the liability of British taxpayers in the 21st century for what happened under colonial administrations. However, we are also right to support this settlement together, because it is the best outcome all round for both the British taxpayer and the claimants. Many of the claimants are of course very old, and further protracted legal proceedings would not necessarily be in their interests.

The right hon. Gentleman asked, quite rightly, about reports in the press. As I think he and the House recognise, I am an enthusiast for announcing things to Parliament. While I am not in a position to point a finger of accusation at anyone, I note that, in view of the nature of the settlement, information about it had been circulated beyond the Government before today. I also note that some of the figures given in newspaper reports are different from the figures that I have given today, and have clearly not come from the Foreign Office. However, the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to make the point that such announcements are best made to Parliament in the first instance. He was also right to join in the sincere regret that the Government have expressed: it will mean a great deal in Kenya that regret has been expressed by the Opposition as well as by the Government.

Let me turn to the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. The claim will not be met by any departmental budget; it is a claim on the Treasury reserve. That is what the reserve is for—to provide lump sums that cannot be anticipated or budgeted for.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what meetings the Government had had. This matter has been a subject of legal proceedings for four years, and the meetings that have been held with the aim of reaching a settlement have taken place with the lawyers of the claimants. From that it can be deduced that the claimants are happy with the settlement. Certainly the lawyers have expressed satisfaction on their behalf.

The Kenyan Government called for a settlement, and it is now for them to react to this settlement in whatever way they wish, but I hope that they will welcome it. The British high commissioner in Nairobi has met the Kenyan human rights commission and representatives of the Mau Mau in recent weeks, and, as I said in my statement, he will be speaking to Mau Mau veterans today, in particular about our plans for a memorial. However, all the contact in London has been with the lawyers.

Let me say again that, like the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that stronger ties between our countries are very important. Kenya is an important partner of this country in trade and tourism, and also—this is particularly important—in countering terrorism and seeking stability in east Africa. We work with Kenya closely in trying to bring stability to Somalia, for instance. I hope that the settlement will make it easier for us to do all those things in the future.

Syria

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House and giving his statement, and for advance sight of that statement. We have all watched events unfold in Syria with increasing horror, yet the whole House has not had the opportunity to discuss the conflict in Syria for some weeks.

Let me begin my questions with the key issue of arming the rebels, which in recent months the Prime Minister has suggested is key to “tipping the balance” and creating peace in Syria. Indeed, in his statement today the Foreign Secretary added: “The case for further amendments to the EU arms embargo on Syria is compelling, in order to increase the pressure on the regime and give us the flexibility to respond to continued radicalisation and conflict. We have to be open to every way of strengthening moderates and saving lives”. This signal should not surprise us. Indeed, in recent weeks, there have been newspaper reports of a confidential document that sets out a range of options that would allow the UK to send lethal support to Syria’s opposition. The Foreign Secretary has again chosen his words carefully today, but I believe that the risk of a decade-long sectarian civil war in Syria, fuelled in part by weapons supplied by the UK, should give him serious pause for thought before embracing that course.

The struggle in Syria today is between forces funded and armed by outside sponsors, notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran. Also participating are foreign religious groups that are not directly controlled by their sponsors, namely the Sunni Salafist and Iranian-aligned militias, together with intensely anti-western al-Qaeda fighters. I would therefore be grateful if the Foreign Secretary addressed himself to this point: if, as he states, his priority is a negotiated end to the conflict, is contemplating arming the rebels the crucial question? Surely the crucial question is how to create a sustainable political settlement in a complicated and fractured country. The conflict is so vicious today in part because the stakes are so high for each of the communities involved. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that Syria is awash with weaponry? What is his assessment of how much weaponry would be required to tip the balance against Assad, and how, in practical terms, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that weapons supplied do not fall into the arms of al-Qaeda-supporting jihadists?

The choice for the international community is not between sending military support to Syria’s opposition and doing nothing at all. Assad is sustained by external support from Russia and Iran and the foreign cash that allows him still to pay his forces. Will the Foreign Secretary explain why he did not place more emphasis in his statement on the practical steps that could be taken to choke off Assad’s finances and the country’s energy supplies through effective enforcement of sanctions? Any future actions or policies of the UK Government should be adopted only on the basis of their capacity to contribute to a peaceful outcome.

I agree with the Government that they should seize the opportunity afforded by the proposed US-Russia conference to try to end the fighting and prevent the Lebanonisation of Syria. That is exactly the type of engagement with the Russians that the Opposition have urged for many months, as the Foreign Secretary will recollect.

Syria has experienced minority rule for 40 years, so any comprehensive peace settlement for Syria must, by its nature, be inclusive. It would be wrong to underestimate the fear, particularly in the Alawite community, that a change from minority rule to democracy provokes. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore assure the House that that is the approach he will advocate in Jordan tomorrow and in his further discussions ahead of the conference?

In conclusion, we have learnt from recent history that when a country with such a range of religious and ethnic identities emerges from a bloody war, communities are slow to trust one another again. Will the Foreign Secretary explain the Government’s assessment of the scale of post-conflict planning currently under way by the international community? What role are the UK Government playing in facilitating that?

The Opposition strongly support and welcome the Government’s humanitarian funding for the Syrian people, but does the Secretary of State accept that Britain alone cannot take on the burden of upscaling the humanitarian response in Syria in the wake of any peace agreement, which all hon. Members wish to see? It is therefore vital that he delivers on the pledge he made at the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting, which he chaired: he said that his immediate priority was

“ensuring that donors who generously pledged their support at the Kuwait conference fulfil their commitments”.

How will he ensure that all those commitments are indeed turned into payments to help to rebuild Syria?

There is common ground between the Government and Opposition on supporting humanitarian efforts to assist the people of Syria; supporting the work of the human rights observers; supporting UN investigations into the use of chemical weapons; and encouraging a diplomatic resolution to this continuing conflict. However, if the Government wish to take the step of arming the rebels, I ask and urge the Foreign Secretary to come back to the House before that decision is made and make the Government’s case to Members on both sides of the House who, along with the President of the United States, continue to have concerns about the wisdom of that proposed course of action.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful, as always, to the right hon. Gentleman. While there are some differences—I will reply to his questions—there is also a great deal in common across the House. As he knows, I regularly come back to the House whenever there is the slightest variation in the situation, so if there are any developments in the Government’s policy I would certainly seek to do so. He said that we had not had the opportunity to discuss this matter for a while. I must just make the observation that, most unusually, the Opposition chose not to devote any day of the debate on the Queen’s Speech to foreign affairs. We could have discussed Syria and all other issues at great length. That was a mysterious decision and I do not want to speculate on the reasons for it, but the opportunity was there.

There is a lot of agreement on many issues. The right hon. Gentleman asked about humanitarian support. Since the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting, far more countries have supplied the funding they committed to at Kuwait. As I mentioned in my statement, the UN appeal for $1.5 billion is now 71% funded. However, that was an appeal to cover the period from January to June. We have to expect, in the near future, a new UN assessment of the humanitarian aid that will be required, which could be well above the previous appeal of $1.5 billion. This is already the biggest ever UN humanitarian appeal, demonstrating the scale of what we are dealing with. I pay tribute to my colleagues in the Department for International Development—the Minister of State is here—for all their efforts to get other countries to meet their commitments, as we in the UK have.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about post-conflict planning. We have led the way internationally, with the conference earlier this year at Wilton Park. Understandably, many minds in the opposition, and in the regime for that matter, are turned to the conflict rather than post-conflict planning. It would be good if all sides could spend more time on post-conflict planning, but we continue to give advice and discuss the matter with our partners on the Security Council. It may well be that we will hold other events ourselves to ensure that that planning exists.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for a political settlement to be inclusive—that is absolutely critical. The compact we made with the National Coalition at our Istanbul meeting includes a clear commitment to a democratic and non-sectarian Syria; a Syria without retribution, other than against those who have committed war crimes; and a Syria in which the institutions of the state are not dismantled. The Syrian National Coalition is concerned to learn lessons from Iraq, where too many institutions of the state were dismantled. On all those points, I think I can entirely satisfy him and be in accord with him.

The right hon. Gentleman was, however, going too far to suggest that there is somehow an alternative policy by which sanctions could be better enforced. The European Union enforces its sanctions tightly, but the House must remember that the EU is alone in the world, as a grouping, in enforcing sanctions. The United States and some of the other Arab states enforce sanctions on Syria, but there are no UN sanctions of that kind, and there are routes around such sanctions over time. It is not within the power of the EU to change that; it is within the power of the UN Security Council, but Russia and China have never supported resolutions on that subject, so that is not an available alternative policy.

I did indeed choose my words carefully on the question of arms. We are seeking amendments to the embargo, not immediately to use those amendments. The discussions we will have in the EU in the coming week, will be very important in making the Geneva negotiations take place, let alone be a success. We need more pressure on the regime. We need more encouragement to the opposition that they will not for ever have to endure, if all negotiations fail and there is no way forward, people—who may be described as rebels, but are men, women and children sitting in their communities—suffering virtually every kind of weapon that man has ever invented being dropped on them while most of the world denies them the means to defend themselves. If we come to a choice about that, it is a very important foreign policy and moral choice, which of course should be discussed fully in this House. It is a very important choice indeed. We have to bear it in mind, however, that one of the drivers of radicalisation is the availability of weapons to extremist groups and to the regime, but often not to moderate opposition groups. Of course there are legitimate differences over all such issues, and it would be a very difficult foreign policy choice. We are clear that we need amendments to the arms embargo to take EU policy in the right direction, which is what I will be working for over the coming week.

G8 Foreign Ministers

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. The G8 Foreign Ministers meeting covered a range of subjects, as the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement, but I will focus on Syria and North Korea.

First, however, it would be remiss of me to do anything other than express my personal congratulations to the Foreign Secretary on his leadership on the issue of sexual violence in conflict zones. His steps to bring the international community together to tackle the horrific use of sexual violence in conflict have rightly received warm support from Members in all parts of the House. I also pay tribute to the civil society groups that have campaigned tirelessly on the issue, and on whose significant efforts the Foreign Secretary’s engagement has been built.

The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have speculated in recent weeks about the need to ensure that the Syrian rebels are armed and trained. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the G8 communiqué made no reference to international efforts to stem the flow of arms into Syria, but did he raise the transfer of weapons at the meeting or, indeed, in any bilateral meetings with G8 Foreign Ministers in attendance, in particular with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov? In his statement, the Foreign Secretary stated that the UK has “taken no decision” on arming the Syrian rebels, but in the Liaison Committee on 12 March the Prime Minister struck a rather different tone, as he was keen to stress that the UK

“might have to do things in our own way.”

He added that the UK was “still an independent country”.

Will the Foreign Secretary clarify those earlier remarks from the Prime Minister, and will he further clarify whether the Government’s approach to arming the rebels has altered in any way in the light of recent evidence of radical Islamist militants operating on the ground? That includes the al-Nusra Front, which only last week confirmed its affiliation to al-Qaeda. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary will be aware of a letter that I sent to him on 20 March raising questions about the British Government’s decision to

“fund training to help armed groups understand their responsibilities and obligations under international law”.—[Official Report, 6 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 963.]

I have not yet received a reply from the Foreign Secretary, so in the light of the upcoming deadline for the renewal of the EU arms embargo, will he kindly confirm his intention to reply to that letter?

I also welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary said that one of the immediate priorities arising from the meeting was ensuring that donors provide the funding that they have promised for Syria. Will he confirm whether all the states represented at the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting last week have provided all the funding that they have promised?

A key priority on Syria as we approach the G8 summit must be to build influence with Russia, and encourage it to stop its continued sponsorship of the Assad regime. Given that, I found it a little curious that the Foreign Secretary restricted his observations about discussions with Russia to a single line in a statement of six pages. Will he clarify what, in the light of the final communiqué from the Foreign Ministers meeting, is the British Government’s strategy to help to bring an end to the violence in Syria? If it is the Geneva accords, what practical steps have been taken to secure the anticipated negotiations?

Finally, I should like to turn to the points made by the Foreign Secretary on the ongoing situation in the Korean peninsula. We support the agreement reached by Foreign Ministers following the G8 meeting to condemn the continued aggressive and provocative actions of the North Korean regime. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that China’s role as an historic supporter of North Korea is key to defusing the crisis, so will he join me in welcoming its constructive engagement on the issue to date?

The efforts of others will not absolve the North Koreans of their own responsibilities, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that the responsibility is now on the North Korean leadership to accept an open offer that has been extended from the international community to initiate meaningful negotiations in relation to this troubling and dangerous situation?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and for his strong endorsement of the initiative that I have been pursuing on preventing sexual violence in conflict. This is a cross-party issue that is of concern to people in all parties in the UK, and we can all enthusiastically get behind it. We are, as he said, building on the efforts of people in civil society, many NGOs and people who have already worked at the United Nations for some years, but it is time for the most powerful, active Governments of the world to get behind the initiative, make major international diplomatic progress, and show that we can change the situation on the ground. I will keep the House updated throughout the year on our efforts.

On Syria, the right hon. Gentleman asked about discussions on the transfer of weapons. We had a long discussion about Syria at the G8 and with the Russian Foreign and Defence Ministers when they made a bilateral visit here on 13 March. So in the past month we have had two substantial rounds of discussions with Russian Ministers—indeed, three rounds in just over a month. Of course we discussed the continued flow of weapons to the regime in Syria. Part of the problem is that the regime can continue to receive weapons, but many moderate figures in opposition groups say that they cannot obtain them.

What the Prime Minister said last month about the possibility that we might have to do more is very much what I am saying here and what I said in my last statement—that our policy cannot be static. He said, and I repeated in the statement, that we have not taken any decision about arming the opposition ourselves. There are legitimate arguments against that. They have sometimes been put in the House, and the right hon. Gentleman has raised some of them. If we were to take that step, we would have to assure ourselves to the maximum degree possible not only of the international legal position, but that the weapons could not be misused by others for whom they were not intended. Those are major considerations.

It must also be a major consideration that we currently face a humanitarian catastrophe, with tens of thousands of people being killed and millions in desperate need. A regime that is not bringing the conflict to an end can get weapons and extremists can get weapons, but people who are in favour of a free, democratic and moderate Syria find it very difficult to do so. We all have to ask ourselves how long we can go on with that situation if the conflict continues and if it continues to get worse. Of course, what we need most of all is a diplomatic and political settlement. Giving additional assistance to the National Coalition is part of putting pressure on the regime to come to a political settlement.

To expand on our discussions with Russia about that, we have discussed with our Russian colleagues several times in the past month how to try to come together to bring about the Geneva communiqué—a transitional Government drawn from regime and opposition, with full executive authority—but no one in other western or Arab nations, nor the UK, has yet succeeded in agreeing with Russia the mechanism to bring that about. A United Nations Security Council resolution would, in our view, be the appropriate mechanism, but Russia and China have vetoed that in the past and would do so again under current circumstances. It could come about through each of the countries involved—through us, the United States, the Russians and others—putting pressure on all the parties involved to negotiate that. We are ready to do so. We are always doing that with the national coalition, but sufficient pressure has not been put on the regime to do that, so we will always work hard on a diplomatic and negotiated way forward. In the absence of that, we have to do what we can to save lives and to try to make a resolution of the conflict more likely.

I agree with the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. China’s position of agreeing to UN Security Council resolution 2094, which put additional sanctions on North Korea, is welcome. I will discuss that with the new Chinese leadership over the next couple of days to see how we can work together on it. The message should be clear, as it is from the whole House and from the whole UN Security Council: North Korea has a choice, and with the choice it is making at the moment it will end up with a country that is even more broken and even more isolated, even from China. It is not too late to make an alternative choice; the path of multilateral negotiations and greater engagement with the international community is still open.

Syria

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

One of my missions is to always seek to put your mind at rest, Mr Speaker, so I will endeavour to keep my remarks as short as possible. In my own defence, I would simply say that, by way of introduction, I indicated that the Foreign Secretary’s statement prompted more questions than it answered. I am, however, mindful of your view, Mr Speaker, so I will conclude shortly.

I understand that the frustrations of Government Members are growing, but a strategy born of frustration is less likely to deliver than one based on clear thinking and strategic insight. Surely the priority now for Britain should be to work to unify the Syrian opposition, not to arm it. The continuing loss of life underlines the fact that Syria needs to see a de-escalation and a political resolution. Although the Government have our support for their actions to provide the humanitarian and non-lethal assistance to Syria announced today, it is far from clear that taking steps to intensify this conflict in the months ahead would do anything to reduce the present level of violence being suffered by the Syrian people.

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman correctly draws attention, as I have done, to the extent of the human suffering. The fact that the United Nations has launched the largest ever financial appeal for humanitarian assistance underlines the catastrophic scale of that suffering. We must all remember that that is the background to the situation and to deciding what we have to do.

The right hon. Gentleman made some recommendations towards the end of his remarks, some of which we have done, including work to unify the Syrian opposition, which, of course, is what we did for many months. They have been unified, to the extent that it can be practically achieved, in the Syrian National Coalition and we have recognised that group as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. I do not suppose that any opposition or political grouping will be perfect in the eyes of this or any other country, but I do not believe that there will be a better attempt or greater success at unifying the Syrian opposition than the national coalition.

It would be wonderful if some of the right hon. Gentleman’s other recommendations could be achieved, including Russian and Chinese agreement to impose an arms embargo by the whole world on Syria. We would, of course, support that—we will go over this ground in our meetings with the Russians this afternoon and next week—but I have not seen any prospect of Russia agreeing to such an arms embargo. It is a good thing to wish for, but in practical, diplomatic terms there is no possibility at the moment of it being achieved. That is the background to the decisions that we have to make. Many things would be far preferable, such as an immediate agreement on a negotiated political transition in Syria.

The right hon. Gentleman asked, rightly, how seriously we should take the offers to negotiate. Having talked to President al-Khatib of the national coalition last week, I believe not only that his offer is sincere but that he would love it to be taken up and that he really would negotiate with members of the regime without prior insistence on the departure of Assad. However, President Assad’s insistence during his weekend interview that the regime is ready to negotiate is something that we have heard for two years but that has never turned into actual substance. Of course, we will discuss with Mr Brahimi again this afternoon whether those statements can be used to bring both sides closer together. It is part of his job to try to do that. The evidence of the past two years, however, is that, in current circumstances, offers to negotiate by the regime are not sincere, are not followed up and do not lead to the sort of progress that we all want to see.

It is against that background of diplomatic deadlock and political stalemate while tens of thousands die that I argue that we have to do what we can in a very cautious, considered and clearly thought-out way to try to change that situation and to save human lives as best we can, working at all times with our partners and allies, including those in the Arab world. There is a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Arab League today.

We will continue to use every diplomatic effort, but the situation that the right hon. Gentleman and I are describing cannot remain static. He is quite right to say that the international community has been an abject failure collectively. The United Nations Security Council has not shouldered its responsibilities. We have tried many times to put that right, but our resolutions have been vetoed. We have been working in the last month since Mr Brahimi’s last briefing to the Security Council to find a new common way forward for the council—we will discuss that again with the Russians in the coming hours—but that common ground has not emerged in a month of discussions behind the scenes in New York.

Given that situation, we all have to ask ourselves whether we are going to hold our policy completely static or show that we are prepared to change as the situation deteriorates—reluctantly perhaps, and cautiously at all times. I argue that we must be prepared to show an increased level of support for the opposition, and that it has to take a practical form if we are to exert any pressure on the regime—and, indeed, on Russia as well—to successfully negotiate on this matter. The parameters have, I hope, been clearly set out in my statement. They are clearly set out in the amendment to the United Nations arms embargo. It is amended, not lifted. The arms embargo remains in place; these are specific exemptions for non-lethal military equipment and for technical assistance for the protection of civilians. I have just given examples of what that means in practice.

As for the future, the EU sanctions have now been rolled over, with that amendment, for three months. There will therefore be a further discussion in May about the renewal of such sanctions, and the Government—and every Member of this House—will be able to form their views on what we should do, in whatever situation we have arrived at in May, about further amendments to the embargo, if they are necessary. I think the parameters are clear. The policy is clear, and above all I want to make it clear that its direction is clear: we must be prepared to do more in a situation of such slaughter and suffering, and a more static policy would not measure up to the gravity of the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The United Kingdom made that distinction and we believe that those wings are organisationally distinct, even if they both come under the same overall leadership. It is important to recognise that Hezbollah’s political wing is and will remain an important part of Lebanon’s political scene, and we have to be able to act in the interests of the stability of Lebanon. We do not believe that an EU consensus could be arrived at on the designation of the whole of Hezbollah.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to the answers offered by the Foreign Secretary, and on this matter I sense that there is genuine cross-party agreement across the House. He says that active discussions are under way with European partners on the proscription of Hezbollah’s military wing, but that some countries are looking at further evidence. Given the terms of the report published by the Bulgarians on 5 February and the discussions that the Bulgarian Minister has had with other European colleagues, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what further discussions he is going to have, particularly with the French and with others? What assurance would they need in order to be able to match the action that, with our support, the British Government have taken?

[Mr Hague]

Of course, we are in active discussion with other European partners, including France. As I say, some are immediately supportive of designation, as we are, but some want to look in more detail at the evidence, although plenty of evidence is available. Some have concerns about the impact on the stability of Lebanon—concerns that I think are unfounded—on EU relations with Lebanon or on European troops serving in the UN mission in southern Lebanon, the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon. So there are a variety of reasons for this, which I do not agree with, and it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with them either. I shall, thus, quote the strong cross-party support in this House in the Government’s further discussions about this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

In a very short answer, Mr Speaker, we do indeed have serious concerns about the recent wave of self-immolations and urge the Chinese authorities to show restraint towards Tibetan protestors. As my hon. Friend knows, we believe in meaningful dialogue between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and the Chinese authorities as the best way to address and resolve the underlying grievances. There is no change in our policy towards Tibet, which we regard as part of the People’s Republic of China. However, we are always concerned about human rights issues and—in the interests of brevity, Mr Speaker—we will take an additional look at the points that my hon. Friend raises.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

In the light of the latest round of the P5 plus 1 talks held last week in Kazakhstan, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on progress? In particular, will he share with the House, if he feels able, some of the specific guarantees that the UK Government would be looking to achieve from the Iranians as part of these important discussions, given that being clear about the objectives increases the likelihood of success in the negotiations?

[Mr Hague]

These discussions took place in Almaty last week, on 26 and 27 February, and they were successful enough for further meetings to be agreed. Meetings of officials will take place in early April, also in Kazakhstan. Of course, it is pleasing that it is worth while having those further meetings. In the E3 plus 3 we have put a revised offer to the Iranians. However, that revised offer would involve both sides taking actions that then build confidence for further negotiations, without our thinking that we can resolve the entire problem in one move—one negotiation. We hope that Iran will continue to take a strong interest and a constructive role in these negotiations. It is too early to tell whether the Iranian position is to do that or to play for time, as has often happened in the past.

[Mr Alexander]

I note that the Foreign Secretary says that it is too early to tell about these negotiations and that the issue cannot be resolved in one go. I certainly recognise both those points. In recent days there has been quite a lot of speculation about the prospects for bilateral negotiations between the United States and Iran. Will he share the Government’s thinking as to the likelihood of a grander bargain between those two powers taking place in the months ahead?

[Mr Hague]

The United Kingdom is, of course, open to bilateral discussions, which are difficult in our case because of the unavoidable closure of embassies. Nevertheless, I have from time to time met the Iranian Foreign Minister and we are open to the idea of other members of the E3 plus 3 having bilateral discussions with Iran. Such discussions sometimes take place at the margins of the E3 plus 3 meetings. It is important for Iran to know that we are seeking to settle the nuclear issue—Iran would, of course, have all the rights of a country under the non-proliferation treaty—and that the western world is not embarked on regime change in Iran. That sincerely is what we are trying to do. Any bilateral discussions that make that clear and allow negotiations to proceed more successfully on that basis would, of course, be welcome.

Europe

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

No, this is quite an interesting explanation. Minutes later, on the “Daily Politics” show the shadow Energy Secretary adjusted her position: it was correct, she said, that at the next election the Conservatives would be promising a referendum and Labour would not, but she gave the caveat that that was the position “as it stands today”. More accurately, it was the position as it stood that minute because minutes later journalists were briefed that the Leader of the Opposition had meant to say that Labour did not want an in/out referendum now. Within half an hour, the shadow Foreign Secretary was back on the airwaves—a busy chap—to correct his leader and explain,

“our judgement is that to commit to an in/out referendum now is the wrong choice for the country”

but, he added, “we’ve never said never”.

If we look at the evidence, although we cannot be certain about the Labour party’s position, we can make an educated guess that although Labour will not call for an in/out referendum now, it might do so in future, and it is completely possible—but not certain—that it will be in its next election manifesto. I am waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to nod—

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Hague]

He is nodding. That is the position: it is possible, but not certain. If that is Labour’s position, it is the most uncertain position of all—they might have an in/out referendum, but they might not. The Labour party is against a referendum but not necessarily; it has adopted a position for the next general election that might not apply at that election. It is against uncertainty, but it is not really sure about it. I ask Labour Members to listen to members of their party, the shadow Cabinet or the leadership.

Who said:

“This is about democracy…it is about respecting the people. Successive generations have not had a say on the European debate. All parties have promised a referendum over the last couple of years. This will fester until a proper open discussion is allowed by the political class.”?

That was the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) who is meant to be in charge of policy in the Labour party. More recently, who said:

“I think at some point there will have to be a referendum on the EU. I don’t think it’s for today or for the next year, but I think it should happen...My preference would be an in or out referendum when the time comes”?

That was the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), a close colleague of the shadow Foreign Secretary. Most eloquent of all, who said:

“The European mandate that the Heath Government secured in the 1970s belongs to another time and another generation. I believe a fresh referendum on this will be necessary…a healthy means of re-establishing a consensus—among Britons…about Britain’s place in the world”?

It is not often that I agree with Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool in the County of Durham and Foy in the County of Herefordshire—he likes his full title—but when he spoke he was, most unusually, speaking for the people of Britain. We will wait for the shadow Foreign Secretary to set out his party’s definitive position. If he does so with certainty, it will be very revealing, and if he accuses the Government of uncertainty, it will be very amusing.

The coalition Government have a strong record with many achievements to their name. We have a clear vision for Britain’s future in Europe. We want reform, and then a referendum with a real choice: in the European Union on a new settlement or out. I hope and believe that Britain will remain in the European Union under a fresh settlement with fresh consent. That would be in the interest of Britain and Europe. We are seeking not only an improvement in Britain’s position, but an improvement in the way the European Union works that would benefit all its countries. We need a focus on competitiveness, flexibility, less centralisation and better democratic accountability, and that would be a European Union that can succeed in the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make a little more progress.

Of course there are differences between our parties’ approaches on what those changes should include. My judgment is that the reason the Prime Minister was unable last week to set out the changes he wanted to see, beyond the change in working hours for junior doctors, was that the brittle façade of unity to which he is aspiring will crack—indeed, will disintegrate—as soon as he starts to get into the specifics, whether on employment law, social policy, fisheries policy, or a wide range of other issues. I commend the speech I gave, because it details changes in policy. We want to see Europe moving towards growth, and specific policies within the Commission to advance growth, rather than the approach taken in recent years. We see some institutional changes that are required. Of course there are other areas that we will look at, and they are set out in the speech. It is a matter of regret, however, that the Prime Minister felt unable even to match the shadow Foreign Secretary in the level of detail he could provide in his much-trailed speech last week.

One other point on which there was only obscurity last week was that of timing. The Prime Minister seemed unable to be clear on the most basic issue, because it remains uncertain whether treaty change will even happen on the time scale he suggested. At present, no intergovernmental conference is planned for 2015 and most EU Governments now claim there is no need for a big treaty revision for years to come. The only certainty, therefore, is more uncertainty delivered by the Prime Minister.

After both the Prime Minister’s speech and the Foreign Secretary’s speech today, we have been left with a commitment to an in/out referendum on a repatriation agenda that is unknown, within a time frame that is uncertain and towards an end goal that remains wholly undefined. In the debate in the House in 2011—when, incidentally, the Foreign Secretary voted alongside me in the Division Lobby—we argued that to announce an in/out referendum in these circumstances would not serve Britain’s national interest. Our position remains: reform of Europe, not exit from Europe.

Labour recognises, as I have sought to suggest, that the need for EU reform did not begin with the eurozone crisis, which is why our agenda for change must address the need for institutional, as well as policy, reform. That means tackling issues such as how to give national Parliaments more of a say over the making of EU legislation and delivering credible proposals for reform of the free movement directive and family-related entitlements at EU level.

The most immediate focus, however, must be on changes that promote and create jobs and growth. That is why we have consistently called not just for restraint, but for reform of the EU budget. The budget might be only 1% of GDP, but it could be better used, with a greater focus on securing growth and continued reform of the CAP. Alongside reform of the budget, we have argued for a new position of EU growth commissioner and a new mechanism better to assess the impact of every new piece of EU legislation to promote growth across the EU.

Protections for the single market and revival of the prospects for growth should be Europe’s priority for change, but to support and defend the single market—this was the point I was alluding to earlier—we must first understand how the market works. The internal market involves more than simply the absence of tariffs and trade quotas at the border. Common regulatory standards covering issues such as consumer rights, environmental standards and health and safety rules are not simply additions to the workings of the single market, but the basis on which it is built.

That means that a credible growth strategy for the UK as part of the EU cannot, and should not, be pursued on the basis of cheap labour, poor labour standards, poor safety standards and environmentally shoddy goods. If European partners, such as the Germans and the Dutch, can compete in global markets with high European standards, why do some Government Members claim that Britain cannot do so? The Opposition understand that the real agenda on certain Government Benches is not only to bring powers back, but to take rights away.

The Government’s approach threatens the directives on parental leave and agency workers and could mean that they no longer apply in the UK. On the working time directive, it is right that we have the opt-out negotiated by the last Labour Government, but what is the Government’s position? They cannot tell us whether they oppose every aspect of the working time directive. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will nod or shake his head. Does he support the maintenance of four weeks’ paid holiday entitlement?

[Mr Hague]

Finish the speech.

[Mr Alexander]

What a revealing answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend accurately describes the position of successive Governments. I have said before in this House that changing facts on the ground, principally the construction of settlements on occupied land, mean that the two-state solution is slipping away. The chances of bringing it about are not yet at an end, but it is very urgent. I do not want to speculate, of course, about the outcome of the election taking place at the moment in Israel, but I hope that whatever Israeli Government emerge will recognise that we are approaching the last chance of bringing about such a solution.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Let me pick up where the last question left off. In a speech to the House in November, the Foreign Secretary said:

“If progress on negotiations is not made next year, the two-state solution could become impossible to achieve.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 227.]

Today, he talked again of the greatest efforts since Oslo. In the light of today’s Israeli elections and yesterday’s US presidential inauguration, can he offer the House a little more detail on the substance of the major American initiative of which he has spoken? What other initiatives will be possible in the course of 2013 if we are not to see the end of the two-state solution, as he puts it?

[Mr Hague]

The short answer on the details of the initiative is no, because it requires the United States to take the lead. That is not because other countries like us are not willing to play our own active part, but because the United States is in a unique position in the world to help bring Israel into a two-state solution. I will be going to Washington next week and discussing the question with the United States. The Secretary of State has changed and there have been many other changes of personnel in the US Administration, and I have put it to them that this should be the single highest priority for new momentum in American foreign policy, even with all the other challenges we face in the world today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will remember that in October 2011 he and I stood shoulder to shoulder in the same Lobby opposing a motion for an in/out referendum on Europe. He said at the time:

“It would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time.”

I have not changed my mind—why has he?

[Mr Hague]

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will have to await the Prime Minister’s speech about this. Talking of changing minds, I understand now from the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition that he is not ruling out having such a referendum in future in any case. Talking of changing minds, the right hon. Gentleman and Labour Members did not support our referendum lock legislation, and I understand now that they have no wish to repeal it, which we welcome. Talking of changing minds, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition said that if he were Prime Minister for long enough he might take Britain into the euro, while now he says that he would not but will still not rule out backing euro membership for the future. No minds change more often on this subject than those of Opposition Front Benchers.

[Mr Alexander]

Many words, Mr Speaker, but not quite as many answers. Perhaps I can try the Foreign Secretary on this one: if he believes that an immediate in/out referendum will cause uncertainty, why would an in/out referendum many years from now not cause uncertainty?

[Mr Hague]

As I say, I do not want to anticipate the Prime Minister’s speech. However, I think it is clear from my analysis of the policy of the Opposition that nothing could create more uncertainty than the adoption of their positions, and constant changing of their positions, either in this Parliament or the next.

Syria

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of the statement and I am grateful to him for updating the House this morning.

It is a matter of profound regret that the biggest single change we have seen since we last debated Syria in the House is simply the number of casualties. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, the United Nations estimated on 2 January that the war’s death toll has exceeded 60,000, of whom about half are thought to be civilians, and it predicts that the death toll will increase at a rate of 5,000 a month. The United Nations Arab League envoy Brahimi recently warned that as many as 100,000 people could die in the next year if a way cannot be found to end the country’s civil war. He described the situation as nothing less than the descent of a country into “hell”.

The scale of the suffering is such that an effective set of actions is required, so let me turn to the four substantive points in the Foreign Secretary’s statement. First, on diplomatic efforts to reach a political transition, the continued stalemate in the UN Security Council is beyond regrettable—it is utterly deplorable. Of course the position of the Russians remains central to this impasse, but recent statements by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, have suggested a possible shift of attitudes in Moscow. There is therefore a heavy responsibility not just on Lakhdar Brahimi, but on all P5 countries, including the United Kingdom, to try to break the present logjam. So does the Foreign Secretary accept that, rather than loudly condemning the Russians, a better course would be to talk to them quietly about how common ground can be established on the process of political transition in Syria? Will he tell the House when he last spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov and when he is scheduled to speak to him next about the critical issue of Syria?

Secondly, may I ask about support for the Syrian National Coalition? Any diplomatic support that the Government can offer to the SNC to encourage it to draw up a credible transition plan for Syria is indeed to be welcomed. In that spirit, the Opposition welcome the conference that is taking place in Wilton Park, which is doing just that, and note the additional funding that has been announced today. However, can the Foreign Secretary set out what he believes are, and remain, the principal barriers to unity which have, to date, prevented the Syrian Opposition from uniting on that credible transition plan? We welcomed the Geneva plan that was drawn up last summer, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that, currently, neither side of the conflict in Syria appears to be committed to implementing it? Will he tell the House whether he is still encouraging the SNC to accept the Geneva plan as a basis for transition?

Thirdly, let me turn to the central issue in the statement, the current arms embargo and EU sanctions on Syria more generally. I note all that the Foreign Secretary said with continuing concern. May I urge him to provide more detail on the following matters? Will he set out, as far as he is able, the Government’s latest assessments of the role of al-Qaeda and other extremist organisations now operating in Syria? Given what he said in his statement, does he accept that Syria is currently awash with arms? Does he recognise the grave and continuing difficulty of guaranteeing the end use of weapons supplied to Syria, given the present uncertainty about the identity, intent and, indeed, tactics of some of the rebel forces? Does he accept that it is perfectly possible that, if Europe were to decide to arm the rebel forces, the Russians would simply increase their own supply of arms to the Assad regime? May I also ask him—not least in the light of recent comments by the Foreign Affairs Committee in an important report—what would encourage him to believe that intensifying the conflict would reduce the present appalling level of suffering of the Syrian people?

Finally, let me turn to the humanitarian consequences of the current violence. Last October I visited the Zaatari refugee camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border, one of many such camps that have been set up to house the fast-growing number of refugees who are fleeing the violence in Syria. During my visit, the aid workers to whom I talked warned of the onset of winter and of worsening conditions on the ground. Their worst nightmares have now been realised. Only this week, aid workers in the camp were attacked by refugees after fierce desert winds and torrential rains had swept through and devastated their tents. There are warnings of a major snowstorm later this week, which will bring even deeper misery to those who are already desperate.

The latest figures from the UN Refugee Agency show that 597,240 people have registered or are awaiting registration with the agency in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. The latest reports from the UN state that £620 million of aid is now needed to help Syrian refugees in countries around the middle east, while £312 million was required to help refugees in Jordan alone. Given the Foreign Secretary’s statement this morning that the UN appeal “remains seriously underfunded”, what steps will he and the Prime Minister take to help to secure those additional funds from the international community before the vital meeting that will take place in Kuwait later this month?

The principal responsibility for the appalling suffering being endured by the Syrian people rests, of course, with Assad and his brutish regime. Last week, in his latest speech, he once again demonstrated a truly callous disregard for human life by expressing no real intention of helping to bring the conflict to an end or to take responsibility for its beginning. However, the burden of responsibility on the international community remains a heavy one. The Opposition believe that, rather than directing their efforts towards intensifying the conflict, the British Government should continue to focus on building international agreement around an inclusive post-Assad Syria and meeting immediate humanitarian needs. I ask the Foreign Secretary, not least in his capacity as a distinguished parliamentarian, to guarantee to the House that we will be consulted again before any change is made in the present approach.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which illustrate that there remains a strong degree of unity on this terrible crisis across the House. I reiterate that I will continue to provide regular updates to the House; I think this is the seventh statement I have made on Syria recently. If there were to be any change in Government policy, I would, of course, bring that to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to what Mr Brahimi said about the possibility of 100,000 deaths this year. That underlines the worsening nature of this crisis. It is not just a continuing crisis; it is a worsening crisis. We have to look at everything we do in the light of that. We are doing a great deal, as I set out in my statement, but we must always be open to doing more and be open to ideas for doing more. We approach this issue in that spirit.

The right hon. Gentleman asked questions on four general areas. On the diplomatic situation, he asked, a bit pointedly, why, rather than condemning Russia, we do not talk to the Russians quietly. We do a great deal of talking to them quietly—we do that on a pretty much continuous basis—but that does not mean that we do not give our public views about their votes in the UN Security Council from time to time. I last met the Russian Foreign Minister for a substantial discussion about Syria in Dublin on 6 December, and I have invited him to visit London in the near future, so our contact with the Russians on this issue is pretty continuous. There has not been a substantial change in the Russian position, although there is, perhaps, a greater Russian interest in renewed discussions. The trilateral meeting between Mr Brahimi, the US and the Russians this week is further evidence of that. We will absolutely keep discussing the diplomatic way forward, based on the Geneva communiqué, which we did agree with the Russians. What we have never managed to agree with them is how to implement the Geneva communiqué. We see the wholehearted involvement of Russia, preferably in a UN Security Council resolution, as being required to bring that about. Russia has not changed its position on that, but we will keep working on it.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about support for the opposition and the barriers to unity. Opposition groups have grown up almost independently of each other, and have not been able to communicate very well on the ground in Syria, and it is therefore difficult to create a united opposition, particularly when some are inside the country and others are outside the country, but the National Coalition is doing a very good job of that—in my judgment, the best job that can be done. There have been well-known difficulties at many stages in bringing in Kurdish representatives, but that has been agreed. It has been agreed that the Kurds will take up a vice-presidency of the National Coalition, but the Kurds themselves have not yet agreed who will fill that position, which serves to illustrate the difficulties involved. The National Coalition is by far the best attempt we have seen so far to bring together responsible opposition forces in Syria. That is why we have chosen to recognise it and work with it.

In the right hon. Gentleman’s third set of questions he asked for more detail, but given the chaotic situation in Syria, it is not possible to quantify accurately the number of extremist, or al-Qaeda supporting, fighters in Syria. In the opinion of opposition leaders, they represent a small minority of what is perhaps a six-figure number of opposition fighters, but it is simply not possible to quantify the exact number. In light of any presence of extremists, however, it is important that we try to bring this situation to a conclusion as soon as possible and support moderate political forces. That is what much of our efforts are directed at.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the many hazards in supplying arms into a conflict area. I stress that we have made no change to our policy in this regard. We are trying to build flexibility into the EU position. It is also important to note that the arms embargo as it currently stands prohibits the supply to opposition groups of such items as body armour, helmets and certain types of communications equipment, so its definition of “arms” is quite broad. That must be borne in mind in any future flexibility that we might build in.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked, rightly, about what steps we are taking to encourage other countries to provide more humanitarian aid, as we have done. The Secretary of State for International Development and I are very busily engaged on that. I discussed it with the Arab League secretary-general, Nabil el-Araby, on Monday and I am raising it in all my bilateral meetings with European and Arab countries to try to build up, ahead of the Kuwait meeting, a greater degree of donations. I hope that I have given full answers to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has shared with the House a number of calls that he has made to Ministers over recent days on the middle east. Given the announcement by the Israeli Government about further expansion of settlements, which we have already discussed, and the summoning of the Israeli ambassador to King Charles street yesterday, will the Foreign Secretary explain how abstaining in last week’s vote at the United Nations enhanced the UK’s influence with either Israel or the Palestinians?

[Mr Hague]

The United Kingdom is in exactly the same position as before regarding influence with the Palestinians and Israel. We have frank but warm relations with the Palestinians and, of course, we are always able to speak to the Israelis. Countries that voted no or yes or abstained were all in the same position over the weekend in disapproving of the Israeli decision and placing pressure on Israel to reverse it. I do not believe that the different ways in which we voted in the General Assembly made any difference to that.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me ask a practical question. In the light of the decision by the Israeli Government to withhold £75 million of Palestinian customs duties, what conversations have Ministers had in recent days with international partners on how to sustain a functioning Palestinian authority? In the immediate term, that would ensure the continuing operation of Palestinian security forces on the west bank, but in the medium term it holds out the prospect of credible negotiating partners for the Israelis.

[Mr Hague]

Of course we are in discussions with other countries on this matter. We must assess exactly what the financial implications are. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are already a major donor to the Palestinian Authority and the fourth biggest donor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The immediate action has been that the consul general in Jerusalem and a Department for International Development team have visited Gaza to assess the situation there, but we must see how we can further assist if there is a deepening financial crisis in the Palestinian Authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

In view of heightened international anxiety about the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria, the United States has indicated that it is preparing contingency plans. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the British Government’s assessment of that potential threat has been heightened in recent days, and whether the United Kingdom is contributing, or has already contributed, to international contingency planning?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, our understanding of the threat has been heightened in recent days. We have seen some of the same evidence as the United States. I cannot give any more details, but I can say that we have already reacted diplomatically. We have expressed in no uncertain terms, directly to the Syrian regime, the gravity of any use of chemical weapons. In our view, as the Prime Minister has said before, that would require us to revisit our approach to Syria. I cannot, of course, discuss contingency plans in any detail, but we in the UK, including those of us in the Ministry of Defence, are always ready with a wide range of such plans.

Palestinian Resolution (United Nations)

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for early sight of his statement, and welcome his decision to come to the House to debate this matter today.

Only last week, the Foreign Secretary admitted in the House that

“Time is running out for the two-state solution.”

I agree with his assessment. Belief in the possibility of a negotiated two-state solution is today haemorrhaging, and haemorrhaging badly, across the region. The Foreign Secretary is an eloquent man, but I struggle to reconcile his statement of today with his analysis of last week. Exactly eight days ago, he told the House:

“There is a perfectly respectable and legitimate case for saying that it would be right to pass such a motion because this has gone on for so long and because Palestinian frustrations are so intense, for understandable reasons. I believe, however, that the balance of judgment comes down on the side of saying that to do so would be more likely to retard efforts to restart the peace process than to advance them”.

Following his statement today, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he has, in fact, changed his mind?

Let me now address the criteria that the Foreign Secretary tells us that he will use to determine how the United Kingdom votes. First, let me turn to the issue of the International Criminal Court. It is a matter of record that, as the Foreign Secretary repeated today, our country is a strong supporter of international justice and of the ICC. It is also a matter of record that Israel is not a party to the ICC treaty, and does not accept its jurisdiction within its own boundaries. Given that, as recently as two weeks ago, the British Government were urging Israel to adhere to international law, will the Foreign Secretary explain why the UK Government now apparently wish to exempt it from possible actions in the ICC for any future breaches of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

The second criterion that the Foreign Secretary mentioned was a return to negotiations without preconditions. Only eight days ago, he told the House:

“Owing to unacceptable settlement building on the west bank and in east Jerusalem, we are not far from a two-state solution becoming impossible and unviable.”

So why, just eight days later, is he apparently suggesting that Israel’s refusal to suspend the expansion of illegal settlements—changing the very facts on the ground as the basis of the negotiations, even as future talks get under way—is a reasonable position for the Israelis to adopt? Is it not the truth that, for all today’s sonorous words from the Foreign Secretary, he let the cat out of the bag eight days ago when he explained his own thinking on the issue? He stated then that

“because of the possible reaction of the US Congress and the possibility of Israel withholding tax revenues, the position of the Palestinian Authority could be made worse by the passage of such a resolution.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 450.]

Let me ask the Foreign Secretary this. Does he really believe that threats issued by a Republican-controlled Congress to punish the Palestinians for taking this diplomatic step are a reasonable basis on which to determine British policy? Does he really believe that Israel’s threat to withhold tax and customs revenues that it collects on behalf of the Palestinians, which legally belong to the Palestinians, are a reasonable basis on which to determine British policy on this vote? When will the Foreign Secretary understand that statehood for the Palestinians is not a gift to be given, but a right to be acknowledged?

I warn the Foreign Secretary that if the United Kingdom abstains tomorrow, it will not be a measure of our growing influence; it will be a confirmation of our growing irrelevance to meaningful engagement in the search for peace. Across Europe, countries such as France and Spain have already made it clear that they will join what I believe will be an overwhelming majority of the 193 members of the UN General Assembly in voting for enhanced observer status for the Palestinians. That vote can, and must, send a powerful signal to the Palestinians that diplomatic efforts and the path of politics, not the path of rockets and violence, offer the route to a negotiated two-state solution.

Let us be honest: in recent days Hamas-run Gaza has, in the midst of conflict with Israel, welcomed the secretary-general of the Arab League, the Prime Minister of Egypt and the Foreign Ministers of Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. In his statement today, the Foreign Secretary rightly lauded President Abbas as a “courageous man of peace”. If, as the Government assert, they genuinely want to support moderate Palestinians and efforts to engage in meaningful negotiations, what signal would an abstention tomorrow send about whether violence or politics secures legitimacy and results?

Just eight days ago the Foreign Secretary sought to explain his position by telling the House that recognition at the UN could “risk paralysing the process”. He spoke again of the process today, but when will he understand: there is no process; there is only paralysis? Indeed, can the Foreign Secretary explain what process he was referring to today? In the last two years, there have been continued illegal settlement-building and continued rocket attacks. There has been fear, anxiety and continuing conflict. There has been continued occupation. There has been continued blockade. But there have been no meaningful negotiations. That is why, for more than a year, Labour has been clear that recognition at the UN for the Palestinians is one of the steps required to achieve a negotiated two-state solution. Abstention tomorrow would be an abdication of Britain’s responsibilities.

Let me appeal to the Foreign Secretary as a historian, by referring to a figure from history whom he and his party rightly revere. The phrase “to govern is to decide” is attributed to Winston Churchill. I urge the Foreign Secretary, even at this late hour, not to dither, but to decide to vote for enhanced recognition for the Palestinians tomorrow at the United Nations.

[Mr Hague]

Although there are clearly some differences between us, the shadow Foreign Secretary expressed common ground when he said that time is running out. The analysis of all of us in all parties on both sides of the House starts from that point, although we draw some different tactical conclusions from it. Indeed, my statement, and our attitude, is based on a sentiment the right hon. Gentleman expressed: we support the right to a Palestinian state. I supported that very strongly in my statement. I have not, however, changed my mind about anything. The right hon. Gentleman was looking too hard for changes between what I said last week and this week because, so far as I am aware, I said the same things about the risks to the peace process, the risks in the US Congress and the risks in Israel.

The right hon. Gentleman asked: is there a process? One of the main points I have been stressing is the need to revive—to restart—that process. There have been many attempts to do that over the past year, and, in particular, the Kingdom of Jordan has played a very constructive role. There are many obstacles to achieving that, however, including Israeli settlement building—which I think is condemned across the House—but another obstacle has been an unwillingness by Palestinians to remove all preconditions for negotiations. It is important to have the commitment from Palestinians to return to negotiations without preconditions, which is why that is one of the criteria we have set. We need both sides to do that, and to be ready to do so whatever happens at the General Assembly. We would welcome that—and, of course, we would particularly welcome it if it could be made clear before the vote. It would be the single most crucial factor that would enable us to vote for the resolution. We will still welcome it if the Palestinians can say that after the vote.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the International Criminal Court. We are certainly not arguing that Israel should be exempt from the ICC, but it is important to remember that, given the urgency on which we all agree, our overriding objective is for negotiations to resume and to succeed. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to me as a historian, and the lesson of history in respect of negotiations is that we have to have enough common ground to bring the two sides together, and that it is important to avoid doing things, certainly in the short term, that make it harder to bring the two sides together. That is the reason for that criterion. So these are sensible criteria for us to have put forward. The right hon. Gentleman expressed his support for voting for the Palestinian resolution even before seeing the resolution. I have waited to see the resolution and then looked at how it can be improved and how we can react to it in a way that maximises the chances of successful negotiations.

It is very important for the Opposition to ask themselves this: if we succeeded and the Palestinians did give the assurances I have asked for, would the chances of negotiations taking place and succeeding be improved? Yes, they undoubtedly would if the Palestinians made those commitments. If they do not give those commitments and we abstain, will the United Kingdom still be in a position, with the Palestinians, with the Israelis, and with the United States, to advance whatever we can make of the peace process? Yes, we will. Therefore, what I have expressed is the optimum position for the United Kingdom and the best for the middle east peace process.

This is not about just agreeing with a resolution because we sympathise, as we do, with the position of the Palestinians; we are a country, not a newspaper or a pressure group. We have to use our vote with all considerations and the ultimate objective in mind. It does not help the Palestinians to help them celebrate for one day while at the same time failing to address the wider needs of the peace process. That is the reason for our position. Whatever happens with this resolution and in the vote tomorrow, the United Kingdom will continue to be at the forefront of working for peace, stability and security in the middle east.

Middle East

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement and for giving me early sight of it today. I shall first address the issue of Syria and the announcement that the Foreign Secretary made in his statement, and I wish to note my recent visit to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, which has been appropriately registered.

As we have just heard from the Foreign Secretary, only a credible and inclusive transition plan and a united opposition hold the prospect of being a bridge between conflict and a sustainable peace in Syria. Until now, not only the Security Council but the Syrian opposition have been disastrously divided. Over many months, the Russians have continued to ask the west, “So if Assad goes, what comes next?” On 11 November, however, we saw the establishment of the new Syrian national coalition in Doha.

Last week, the Opposition called on the Government to recognise the new Syrian national coalition, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement today that the British Government have taken the decision to recognise it as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Recognition is a vital step forward, but can he tell us whether he intends to use this new-found unity within the opposition as the basis for a fresh diplomatic approach to the Russians?

The Opposition are clear that the correct focus for the UK’s efforts on Syria in the days and months ahead must be helping to unify the Syrian opposition, not helping to arm them, so will the Foreign Secretary give the House a guarantee that the recognition of the Syrian national coalition is not a precursor to arming the Syrian opposition fighters, which he must acknowledge would be against the European arms embargo currently in place?

The emergence of a political process must not distract us from the pressing humanitarian crisis. On my recent visit to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, I saw for myself the sheer scale of the human suffering that is a devastating consequence of this war in Syria.

As winter approaches, with more than 2.5 million of Syria’s 23 million people now displaced and non-governmental organisations warning that 200,000 Syrian refugee children are at serious risk from freezing temperatures, action is needed. I therefore welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement that the British Government will be increasing British aid, but will he set out what specific steps he and his colleagues in Government will take to encourage others in the international community to increase their support in the face of the growing humanitarian crisis to which he referred? There is still a significant shortfall in the funds for the UN appeal for Syria. Britain must play its part in encouraging others to contribute and make up this inexcusable shortfall.

Let me turn now to the issue of Gaza. In common with those on the Government Benches, we abhor the loss of life that we have seen in recent days. The Foreign Secretary has reiterated today that principal responsibility for the start of the crisis lies with Hamas. Of course the recent rocket attacks into southern Israel, targeted at a civilian population, deserve our categorical condemnation, but does he accept that although the rockets were the proximate cause, the deeper causes of the latest crisis reflect the failure over years and decades to achieve a two-state solution? Every time a military solution is prioritised over a political solution, greater future problems are generated. Indeed, there is and can be no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Israelis have stressed that their response is justified by the recent escalation of Hamas rocket attacks. No civilian population should have to live in such constant fear, but does the Foreign Secretary recognise that acknowledging—as I do—Israel’s right to defend itself does not oblige the British Government to suspend judgment on the wisdom of its chosen actions? As a response to the rocket attacks from Gaza four years ago, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, in which 13 Israelis and more than 1,400 Palestinians were killed. Operation Cast Lead had the aim of

“destroying the apparatus of terror”,

yet four years on Hamas is still in power in Gaza. More than 1,000 missiles have been launched from Gaza into Israel this year, and in recent days rockets have reached Tel Aviv and the outskirts of Jerusalem. Since Operation Pillar of Defence began on Wednesday, three Israelis and more than 100 Palestinians, many of them civilians, have been killed. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore accept that the scale of the casualties in Gaza, together with the continuing blockade, fuels hatred and emboldens those seeking to isolate Israel internationally? Does he also accept that the marginalisation of the Palestinian Authority by these events further diminishes the prospects for immediate negotiations—and, indeed, Palestinian unity—and that Hamas will undoubtedly claim itself to be the victor, whatever the outcome of the operation or, indeed, the negotiations currently under way in Cairo?

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if the operating logic of Hamas is terror and the operating logic of Israel is deterrence, then pleas for restraint risk simply falling on deaf ears? We on the Opposition Benches have for a number of days been urging not simply restraint, but an immediate cessation of violence. We have been clear that a full-scale ground invasion would be a disaster for the peoples of both Gaza and Israel. It would risk escalating the already spiralling death toll and further damage the hope for peace and security. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, given reports of overflowing wards in Gazan hospitals and the prior degradation of those facilities as a result of the blockade, free and unfettered access, including free passage through crossings, should urgently be guaranteed for medical and humanitarian personnel? Will he also set out what discussions he has had with the Egyptians about humanitarian access and stemming the flow of arms into Gaza—specifically Iranian missile technology—not only in these volatile days of conflict, but in the longer term?

On Saturday, Opposition Members called for a full-scale UN diplomatic initiative to end the violence. We urged the Secretary-General of the United Nations to travel to the region, and we welcome the fact that he has now done so, because sustained international engagement will be vital in helping to bring the conflict to an end. Past military action has failed to bring a durable peace. The fear of the Israeli population today stands alongside the suffering of the Palestinian people. Permanent occupation and blockade is not a strategy for peace; it is a recipe for repeated conflict. Talk of the “middle east peace process” ignores the fact that, sadly, today there is no peace and there is no process. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the long-term security of Israel will depend on its readiness to be as bold in seeking peace as it has been in using military force? At a minimum, that means that Israel must immediately end illegal settlement expansion, which is currently a key barrier to advancing negotiations.

Labour urges the Government to reconsider their stated opposition—repeated again today—and instead support the Palestinians’ bid for enhanced status at the United Nations at this month’s General Assembly meeting. This is not an alternative to negotiations, but a bridge for beginning them. The Foreign Secretary in his statement argued that recognition at the UN could “risk paralysing the process”, but when will he understand that there is at present no process, only paralysis? There is continued illegal settlement building. There are continued rocket attacks. There is continued fear and anxiety. There is continued occupation. There is continued blockade. But there are no meaningful negotiations, and there have not been any for a number of years. The suggestion that enhanced recognition of the Palestinians could somehow imperil progress in the peace process implies that progress is being achieved—and, indeed, that a peace process exists. At present, sadly, neither statement is true. Let us acknowledge this fact. After decades of diplomatic failure, increasingly some are questioning whether a two-state solution is any longer possible. That is why it is vital that as an international community, amidst the undoubted despair and the disappointment, we encourage the Palestinians to take the path of politics and reject the path of violence, and we rekindle hopes that there is a credible route to a viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel achieved by negotiations. The British Government, among others, have a heavy responsibility to advance that goal at the United Nationals in the coming weeks.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Although there is one difference between us, on the UN General Assembly, I welcome his support and the fact that there is so much accord across the House on so many of these subjects and—taking them in the order he raised them—certainly on the new national coalition of the Syrian opposition. As he said, he has called for their recognition. Before the Government gave that recognition, I very much wanted to look into their eyes and ask the questions that I set out earlier, but I have given that recognition, and it is right to do so. All of us across the House have referred for a long time—as the right hon. Gentleman did in his questions—to the need for a unified opposition and the absence of that in the past as one of the obstacles to peace in Syria. Now that the Syrian opposition have done their utmost and made so many compromises to form a national coalition, it is right that we get behind them and that as much as possible of the world gets behind them. It is right for us to join in that, and we now look to the Syrian opposition to fulfil the commitments they have made.

We have taken no decision consequent on that—or no decision at all as things stand—to change our policy on the EU arms embargo. We look at all options, as I have repeated today. We rule out no options. It is the job of the National Security Council to look at all options, particularly as the crisis worsens. At the moment it is going in the wrong direction, but we have taken no decision as things stand to change the policy. We are certainly putting other nations under a lot of pressure—there is a lot of persuasion—to increase the aid they are giving to address the huge humanitarian suffering that I and the right hon. Gentleman have seen on the borders of Syria. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development convened a meeting of many nations on this issue at the UN General Assembly. Since then some of them have increased their aid. Last week I attended the meeting of EU and Arab League Foreign Ministers in Cairo, and that was one of the main points I made to them—that increased contributions, particularly from the Arab world, will be necessary as winter comes and the number of refugees continues to increase—so I think I can readily agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman said on that subject.

Of course we will now—again, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested—use the fact that the opposition have come together in an unprecedented way to renew our diplomatic efforts with Russia. If one of Russia’s objections is—and it always has been—that there is no single interlocutor on the opposition side, that objection at least has now been removed to the possibility of diplomatic progress. I stress that it remains the case that the only real solution in Syria is a diplomatic and political solution. Neither side has anywhere near the military strength to overthrow or remove the other. Even if they did so, they would then be dealing with a deeply fractured society for generations.

There is a lot of agreement on many aspects of the middle east peace process. Whenever a conflict such as this one in Gaza occurs, it is vital to remember the wider picture. At the root of all this is the failure to make progress on the middle east peace process. It is absolutely right to point to the sharp increase in rocket attacks—they have gone up steadily over the years since Operation Cast Lead—producing the current crisis, but it is also quite right to make clear the need for improved access in and out of Gaza in order to allow humanitarian assistance and trade to proceed. It is a mistake by Israel to have such tight restrictions on Gaza; we have often made that clear.

The one point of difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me has been over the tactics of the UN General Assembly, and I want to explain the reason for the Government’s position. Time is running out for the two-state solution. Owing to unacceptable settlement building on the west bank and in east Jerusalem, we are not far from a two-state solution becoming impossible and unviable. With the Israeli election coming to an end in January, with the US election now over, and with time clearly running out, this coming year will be a critical one. People always say, “This will be a critical year,” but this really is one. If progress towards a two-state solution is not made in the coming year, it will, in all probability, not be made.

The message that we have given to the United States is that it is vital that they and we and the major EU countries put our full weight behind this over the coming months. However, we have to ask whether a motion on observer status being carried at the UN General Assembly now would make that easier or more difficult. There is a perfectly respectable and legitimate case for saying that it would be right to pass such a motion because this has gone on for so long and because Palestinian frustrations are so intense, for understandable reasons. I believe, however, that the balance of judgment comes down on the side of saying that to do so would be more likely to retard efforts to restart the peace process than to advance them—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will make different judgments about that. We will see, over time, what the reality is.

If such a motion is carried, we must of course move heaven and earth to prevent it from retarding the peace process and the attempt to restart negotiations. Our message to the United States would be the same. As things stand, however, because of the possible reaction of the US Congress and the possibility of Israel withholding tax revenues, the position of the Palestinian Authority could be made worse by the passage of such a resolution. We will therefore use our vote on this in whatever way we think will keep open the best prospect of negotiations. We will consult closely with our partners in the European Union about this, as I was doing yesterday. I hope that there will be a large measure of European agreement on how to vote on the resolution.

That is the reason for our position on the matter, and it has the best interests of the Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state at heart. In international diplomacy, when our heart and our head pull in different directions, we have to give precedence to the considerations of our head, and the best way to pursue the peace process is to put our full weight behind it in the coming months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There is a variety of political programmes from a variety of opposition groups. I pay tribute to the people I have met, some of whom have come out of Syria to tell us about their experience, for the extraordinary courage and determination that they have shown in the face of overwhelming odds in trying to fight and work for a better society in Syria. However, they do need a more coherent programme for transition, and it is important for them to make every effort to win over the middle ground of Syrian opinion. That includes minorities, Christians and the business community, who need to know that there can be a change to something better than the Assad regime.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I have listened with care to the answer that the Foreign Secretary has just offered, but it is worth bearing in mind that it is now more than 18 months since the beginning of the popular uprising and that neither unity nor a credible opposition plan has yet emerged from the Syrian opposition movement. The right hon. Gentleman referred in a previous answer to the Doha meeting as the next significant step, but would he accept that that meeting has already been postponed? Will he set out what practical steps can be taken with partners in the regions to try to effect the unity that has so far proved elusive?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, it is true that that meeting has been postponed, and there have been many meetings with Syrian opposition groups. It is, of course, not possible or desirable for people in other countries, including our country, to try to impose on them any particular programme. The whole point is that Syria’s future should be for Syrians to decide, so they have to take the decisive steps to come together with a coherent platform. Our special representative works with them on a daily, usually an hourly, basis, and our pressure on them for the forthcoming meeting is co-ordinated with the United States, France, Turkey and leading Arab nations. It is very clear that the Syrians know that the world is looking to them to come together in a more effective way.

[Mr Alexander]

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is a relationship between whether such a transition plan emerges and the capacity of the international community to break the diplomatic logjam that we have heard about already in the course of our questions? If there are to be further discussions with the Russians and the Chinese in particular, which I sincerely hope there will be, the emergence of a credible transition plan is going to be one of the bases on which the optics of that conversation can be changed from the last 18-month stalemate.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, that is quite right. I would not want the right hon. Gentleman or the House to think that it would necessarily bring about an end to that diplomatic stalemate, but it is one of the necessary ingredients, and it is one of the arguments of Russian leaders that the opposition is divided and that there is no single interlocutor with which to deal. It would indeed be very advantageous to remove that argument in trying to bring peace and stability to Syria. I think we are all very conscious of that, and will be very conscious of it over the coming months, and that, indeed, this has gone on for 19 months in total and more than 30,000 people have died. We will continue our work for a peaceful, sustainable transition in Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

That would be a strange thing to take any lessons from, because when the shadow Foreign Secretary was Minister for Europe, the Labour Government signed away £7 billion of the British rebate with nothing in return. It is notable that last year Labour MEPs voted against a budget freeze in Europe because they wanted an increase instead. It is also notable that in the time that the shadow Chancellor was a Treasury adviser and in the Cabinet, the annual EU budget increased by no less than 47%.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Let me return to the subject of Europe, but its relationship with Iran. I associate myself with the latest round of sanctions that have been imposed. Given the imminence of the elections in the United States, what does the Foreign Secretary regard as being the next steps in the diplomatic engagement on the nuclear issue with Iran? In particular, following a rather well-sourced, I understand, piece in The New York Times last week, how does he judge the prospects for bilateral discussions between the United States and Iran on this issue?

[Mr Hague]

The United States and Iran have both denied the prospects, let alone the existence, of such bilateral talks. The next step is for the E3 plus 3 nations, of which we are one, to consider what we can do in any further negotiations with Iran. Our experts are meeting on this. Of course, it is necessary for the US elections to be completed before any further round of negotiations can take place. We are open to those negotiations. We are considering whether to amend our approach in any way, but it remains the case that for them to be successful, Iran would have to engage with those negotiations in a much more meaningful way than before. In the absence of that, we have agreed intensified sanctions on Iran in the European Union, and I want Iran to know that as long as these negotiations are not successful, we will go on intensifying the sanctions pressure upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am not going to comment on the reported comments of the director of the Secret Intelligence Service, but I do not think there is any contradiction in anything that has been said in public. Iran is, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) in asking this question, accumulating material for which there is no logical explanation other than an ultimate intention to construct a nuclear device. There is no peaceful explanation that has been given to the world, and that is the important truth we have to confront, whatever decision-making process is going on in the Iranian leadership.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I have noted all that the Foreign Secretary has had to say about the sanctions that are in place, but given the very concerning terms of the IAEA report, of which he and other colleagues have already spoken, and in particular the reports of the doubling of production capacity in the Fordow underground site, will he share with the House a little more of his sense of whether the current sanctions are themselves sufficient to effect behavioural change in Tehran, or whether other sanctions could be imposed to achieve that outcome?

[Mr Hague]

Those sanctions are having a substantial effect—I quoted some facts in relation to that a moment ago—but it is important to note not only the impact on their oil revenues, which I mentioned, but that Iran’s other industries are also suffering. Domestic car production has dropped by nearly 40%, textile manufacturers are operating at 50% capacity, and there has been a surge in inflation, which is perhaps twice the official figure of 25%. These are very difficult economic circumstances, which Iran is making worse by the policies it is pursuing.

There is no evidence, so far, that this has produced a change of policy in the Iranian leadership, although I am sure it is the best policy for us to pursue. Certainly, I believe there is a strong case for the intensification of sanctions, and for additional sanctions to be agreed in the European Union and brought into force with the United States and other partners around the world, so that Iran is clear about the consequences of continuing with this policy.

[Mr Alexander]

As the Opposition, we have associated ourselves with and support the Government’s approach of intensifying sanctions but also securing engagement and dialogue with the Iranians. Given what the Foreign Secretary has had to say about sanctions, many of us welcome the re-establishment of the E3 plus 3 process. Can he update the House on his assessment of the progress made in those discussions, and has a date been fixed for further discussions?

[Mr Hague]

It was progress of a kind to have the discussions between the E3 plus 3—with Baroness Ashton speaking on our behalf, but all six countries present—and the Iranian negotiators, but those negotiations have not produced any breakthrough. Baroness Ashton and the Iranian chief nuclear negotiator, Mr Jalili, spoke again on 2 August—their most recent conversation—and we expect further contact between them in September. But for those conversations to make progress, it will be necessary for Iran to have less unrealistic objectives for the negotiations, and to be ready to respond to the clear and generous offer that the E3 plus 3 have made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I set out the position in a written statement to the House yesterday and made clear the implications of the fact that the United Kingdom and Sweden are both signatories of the European convention on human rights. We are two countries which have some of the strongest attachment of any countries in the world to human rights. Therefore the fears that have been expressed that extradition to a third country could lead to a death sentence are without foundation.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Bahraini Government have long claimed their determination to pursue the path of reform and reconciliation, but only yesterday it emerged that the retrial of 20 activists and Opposition figures had resulted in all of them being found guilty, with long sentences and, in the case of eight defendants, life sentences. In light of this, can the Foreign Secretary set out the British Government’s judgment as to whether these were fair trials? More widely, what is his assessment of the Bahraini Government’s commitment to reform and reconciliation?

[Mr Hague]

I am very disappointed at the Bahraini civil court’s decision to uphold all the sentences of 20 political activists in Bahrain. We welcome the decision to review these cases in a civilian court but we remain very concerned by some of the charges that defendants were convicted of, and I urge the Bahraini Government to ensure that the human rights and freedoms of their citizens are fully upheld at all times. We are aware that the defendants can now appeal to a further court and we hope that this will be conducted thoroughly, with urgency and with due legal process. That will be one of the tests of the Bahraini Government’s commitment to reform.

Syria

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his remarks and for prior sight of the statement.

Since the House last debated the situation, the pace of the conflict unfolding in Syria has quickened and the situation on the ground worsened. It is impossible yet to quantify the scale of the tragedy, but already, as we heard from the Foreign Secretary, the figures are stark and the suffering immense. I welcome much that he set out for the House today, therefore, but does he accept that the situation in Syria continues to represent not only, of course, a terrible indictment of Assad’s brutality but a tragic failure by the international community? The longer the conflict continues, the greater the risk of a rise of jihadism on the one hand and indiscriminate sectarian violence on the other, making a sustainable resolution to the conflict even harder to achieve. Military action alone will not bring peace to this country, and the bloodshed will not stop unless there is a plan to build the peace as well as one to win the war.

It is deeply to be regretted that the continuing division of the international community has meant that the UN has failed, time and time again, to take the necessary action. Since the House last debated the matter, Kofi Annan has resigned as special envoy, the UN observer mission’s mandate has expired and only today the man brought in to replace Mr Annan has described his mission as “nearly impossible”. But adversity cannot, and must not, be an excuse for inaction, so I welcome—on behalf of the whole House, I am sure—the fact that the Foreign Secretary has set out in his statement the vital and urgent support and relief that the UK is offering for the millions both within Syria and in the border regions.

The number of internally displaced people inside Syria is 10 times greater than the number of refugees in neighbouring countries, but the appeal for assistance for those inside Syria is only 20% funded, and many non-governmental organisations argue that, compared with the appeal for refugees outside the country, the allocation for those in Syria is much less in proportion to the scale of the need. Will the Foreign Secretary set out the steps being taken to address this situation? Given the recent reports of French and Turkish thinking on this issue, what assessment have the British Government made of the viability of buffer zones within Syria to protect fleeing civilians, and will he make clear the Government’s position on this, given that apparently no agreement was reached on it at last week’s UN Security Council meeting?

Alongside steps to relieve the immediate crisis, we share the Government’s view that work must be done to improve Syria’s prospects, but given that Syria has now descended into full-blown civil war it is vital that the Government act with real care in their engagement with the Syrian opposition. I note that the Foreign Secretary told the House this afternoon that “All the support we provide will be carefully targeted, co-ordinated with like-minded countries, consistent with our laws and values, and based on rigorous analysis and risk assessment”. In the light of this commitment, what assurances can he give on the identity, ideology and tactics of the rebel groups to which the UK Government are now providing direct support, and what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that this support is not being channelled to jihadist forces operating within the Syrian opposition on the ground?

I turn briefly to the efforts of the UN. I regret that it took so many months and lives for many finally to acknowledge that the Annan plan had failed—something that many of us warned was in prospect some months ago. In the light of this failure to reach an agreement on next steps at last week’s UN Security Council meeting, what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the likelihood of either Russia or China changing course and supporting a UN resolution—even one enforcing sanctions on Syria or signing up to a global arms embargo? Of course, we welcome the work he set out on documenting human rights abuses but, in the light of the suspension of the UN monitoring mission, has the level of information getting out of Syria increased or decreased since the suspension of the UN mission?

The Foreign Secretary concluded his remarks by stating: “we have not ruled out any options as this crisis deepens.” However, does he accept, and will he confirm, that there is today not the agreed legal basis, the regional support or, indeed, the public appetite for British ground forces to be deployed in Syria? It is imperative, therefore, that the Government focus their important efforts in the weeks ahead on unifying the international community’s response, uniting a fractured opposition behind a credible plan for inclusive political transition and addressing the continued and growing humanitarian need of the millions suffering in Syria today. If that is the focus of the Government’s work in the weeks ahead, they will continue to have the Opposition’s support.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, what he said in summing up at the end of his question is what I have been putting to the House, so we have a unity of approach across the House. In the absence of the international agreement and unity to mandate and require the implementation of the Annan plan or something very similar to it, we are setting out to continue to work on unifying the international community, to help to unite and assist the opposition in various ways and to address the humanitarian crisis. That is exactly our approach.

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the deployment of British ground forces, which is not something I have heard anybody advocate in this country. However, it is also true that we do not know how the situation will develop over the coming months. It is likely to deteriorate sharply even from its current position, given the diplomatic outlook and given that a peaceful transition is becoming harder to achieve, not easier, as the fighting goes on and intensifies. Therefore, it would be wrong to rule out options, but clearly we are proceeding with care and caution in everything that we do.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the pace of the conflict has quickened. More than a quarter of the people who have died in Syria probably have died since the last time we discussed it in this House. That shows how terrible the events of recent weeks have been. He is right that that reflects not only the appalling brutality of the Assad regime, but a failure by the international community. That is due to only a small part of the international community. The UN General Assembly passed a motion on the subject, with which we were very happy, by 133 to 12 on 3 August. However, two of those 12 wield a veto in the 15-member UN Security Council, and have done so on three occasions. I said in my remarks at the Security Council last Thursday that the Security Council has failed, so I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis. This is a failure of the responsibilities of the United Nations Security Council. We should be very blunt about that.

However, I have to inform the House that the prospects for a change in the Russian position are not strong at the moment. As I said, the Prime Minister and I both met President Putin when he came for the Olympics in early August. The Prime Minister discussed the Syrian situation with the President. From all the conversations that we have had with him and with Russian officials and Ministers, I think that the Russian position is likely to change only when the situation on the ground changes further to a substantial degree. Therefore, we have to make a success of all the other actions that we are taking, in the absence of the international agreement that we have sought.

On those topics, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the shortfall, which is serious, particularly as the crisis is getting rapidly worse in terms of IDPs and refugees. That is something that we have called on the international community to address. The United Kingdom is setting a strong example, as I have set out. The Department for International Development is doing a great job in the work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and in supplying the necessary funds, and we will continue to encourage other countries to do so. Indeed, that will be a major topic for us at the UN General Assembly ministerial week, which I and the Prime Minister will attend later this month in New York.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about buffer zones. We are sceptical in the current situation about buffer zones inside Syria. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at our Security Council meeting on Thursday said:

“all human beings have the right to seek and enjoy asylum in another state. This is a right that must not be jeopardized, for instance through the establishment of so-called ‘safe havens’ or other similar arrangements. Bitter experience has shown that it is rarely possible to provide effective protection and security in such areas.”

We must weigh those remarks heavily.

I pay tribute, however, to the people and Governments of Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan for their generosity and hospitality. Many of the people who are fleeing Syria are initially going to camps, but in many cases they are then going to live in people’s homes, particularly in Jordan and Lebanon. We should bear in mind, as we provide the generous assistance that we are putting forward, that the people of those countries are also making an important contribution at a personal level. I paid tribute to them at the Security Council meeting last week as well.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly asked about support for the opposition. Of course, this is an area in which we have to proceed with care, but I believe that the necessity of providing support for people in such a desperate situation outweighs the risks involved in doing so. There are risks attached, however. We know a lot about the various Syrian opposition movements—they vary greatly—and our knowledge of them is improving all the time. Our representative to them, John Wilkes, is working hard and knows them well. I therefore believe that it is possible, subject to the legal constraints and the legal advice that we always have to take on this issue, to channel the kind of assistance that I am talking about—communications equipment, water purification kits, protective clothing—to certain groups without the items falling into the wrong hands. In any case, we are not talking about anything that could cause lethal harm to anyone else, so we have that failsafe, if you like, on the assistance that we are providing. I will keep Parliament updated regularly on how that assistance is being provided and, as far as possible, on how it is being used.

The situation is deteriorating further, and it does represent a failure by the international community, but we in this House can be confident that the United Kingdom is doing its utmost to help the millions of people caught up in this tragic conflict.

Balance of Competences

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I am glad to say that what is missing in quantity is indeed made up for by quality on the Liberal Democrat Benches. There are still some true and honourable Liberal Democrats, I am glad to acknowledge.

The statement we have just heard from the Foreign Secretary will do little to create a greater sense of consensus between the coalition parties, I fear—indeed, the project is not even under way yet and already cracks are emerging. The Foreign Secretary’s Liberal Democrat colleagues, including the Deputy Prime Minister’s advisers, have reportedly been claiming that the audit is a small, low-key affair and largely a technical exercise. The Foreign Secretary today makes grand claims about the scale and scope of the project, but the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), co-chair of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary committee on international affairs, has already said:

“The call for a long list of demands for unilateral repatriation and carve-outs is neither achievable nor desirable.”

Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister is reported in the newspapers to have already warned that the review must not simply provide a turbulent backdrop to what is already a tense relationship between Britain and its EU partners. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister knows a thing or two about tense relationships, what assurances can the Foreign Secretary give his colleague today that that scenario will not come to pass?

The timing of today’s announcement seems to have more to do with managing the fallout from the recent weekend of referendum shambles than with promoting Britain’s national interest, because the splits on Europe are not just between the coalition partners, but within the Conservative party. The timing seems to reflect growing rumblings from those on the Conservative Benches, many of whom will see today’s announcement as merely another step on the ramp towards an inevitable EU referendum. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Right on cue, and from the Conservative Front Bench. Let me therefore take this opportunity to ask the Foreign Secretary an important question that the Prime Minister failed to answer when he returned from last month’s EU summit. If the Conservative party were to propose a referendum premised on a package of powers being repatriated—a list that would probably be drawn from the audit announced today—but the Foreign Secretary was unable to secure such an outcome in his negotiations with members of the EU, would he contemplate advocating withdrawal in a subsequent referendum? I invite him to desist from warning about defeatism and simply to answer the question.

In conclusion, the Prime Minister himself said recently that it is vital for our country

“that we get our relationship with Europe right.”

Much that determines that relationship could well be decided before the Government’s review is completed. The truth is that Britain urgently needs an effective Europe strategy, and an audit, although worth while, is not a substitute for a strategy.

[Mr Hague]

Stripping away one or two of the remarks about political parties, I think that amounted to a welcome for the announcement, as the right hon. Gentleman said that he had “no objection”. That is as near as we get to enthusiasm from Opposition Front Benchers on this subject, so I am grateful to him for what counts as a very strong welcome and I look forward to the Labour party submitting its evidence to the review in due course.

Given that the right hon. Gentleman got into party political matters, let me say that it is a pity that Labour never conducted such a review. It might have helped the Labour Government when they were handing over so many competences without understanding what they were doing, without subjecting them to proper scrutiny in this House and without having a referendum. We remember—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are talking about particular treaties, but it was in the Nice treaty that Labour gave up the veto, which ended up with our being implicated in eurozone bail-outs under qualified majority voting—something from which this Government have now extracted the United Kingdom. The Opposition will therefore benefit enormously—and could have benefited in the past—from this kind of analysis, and I am glad that they have no objection today to its being undertaken.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about our priorities in the coming months. They are, of course, to protect the integrity of the single market. There is much talk about banking union, for instance, although different countries and different commentators mean different things by the term. We will protect the integrity of the single market, but above all our priority is to support measures that will really bring growth to the EU. They include removing barriers to business and pursuing free trade agreements with countries such as Canada and Singapore. Much of that agenda was endorsed at the June European Council.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask other questions about the future, and to suggest that the timetables were somehow amiss, but he himself said in an article in The Guardian on 1 July that

“there are also those within the Labour party who have speculated about the possibility of a referendum… We should not decide now because the pressing priority…is…securing Britain’s interests and protecting the single market”.

That is exactly what I have been saying. He went on:

“And we cannot sensibly decide now because none of us can fully predict where Europe will be in a few months, never mind a few years.”

So he does not want to answer the questions that he has just been putting to me about the longer-term future. What we do know is that, whatever happens, we will be in a better position if we have undertaken this work. It should have been undertaken before. It will inform our negotiations, improve our discussions with our partners and allow the public to be engaged in the process. Perhaps it will also lead to Governments undertaking more successful negotiations than the one that he will remember from his time as Minister for Europe, when he gave away £7 billion of our rebate. There is much to learn if we are to avoid negotiations that are so memorably, comprehensively and disastrously unsuccessful as those.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Safeguards will certainly be needed—my hon. Friend is quite right to raise that—but as things stand proposals and ideas about banking union take many different forms. Many people mean many different things by “banking union”. If such proposals are made more tangible and specific, we will set out the specific safeguards that we think we need for the single market. We are already making the case in European capitals that in the event of a banking union in the eurozone, which, by the way, we will certainly not be part of—let me make that absolutely clear—such safeguards will be necessary.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I am intrigued by the apparent complacency of the Foreign Secretary’s most recent answer. Given the Chancellor’s advocacy of greater integration in the eurozone, would the Foreign Secretary be willing to set out for the House what legal or political safeguards for British businesses and exporters the Government will be proposing at next week’s European Council?

[Mr Hague]

The Chancellor has set out exactly what we think should happen. For the eurozone to be successful, it is necessary to have more support from stronger economies, to help weaker economies adjust; more pooling of resources, whether through common eurobonds or some other mechanism; a shared back-stop for the banking system, to strengthen banks and protect deposits; and, as a consequence, much closer oversight of fiscal and financial policy. That is what we believe the eurozone needs to do. However, if it were to adopt measures that affect—or may affect, in any way—the ability of the single market to operate effectively and in the interests of this country, we will need the safeguards for which we are already making the case. Once we have specific proposals, we will set out those specific safeguards.

[Mr Alexander]

If President Hollande is successful at next week’s European summit in securing agreement for a jobs and growth package, will the Prime Minister support his new-found best friend in this endeavour or will the Government stick to their failing austerity-alone approach, which has delivered a double-dip recession here in Britain?

[Mr Hague]

The Opposition might need to take a closer look at some of the things that President Hollande is advocating, because he is saying that France must balance its budget by 2017. He is also saying that growth cannot come from state spending and that it must be reined in—to use his words—so perhaps the Opposition might care to decide whether they truly support the words of President Hollande.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend and I have had this exchange several times, and he is right to point out the importance of the Sunni-Shi’a tensions, and sometimes conflicts, in the region. As I have said before, however, I believe that there is more to it than that. There are also many people in Syria, of different ethnicities, religions and beliefs, who want freedom and democracy in their country, and who want to be rid of their repressive regime. The factors that my right hon. Friend has mentioned are not the only ones at work, but they certainly add to the complexity of the situation. They also add to the importance of opposition forces representing all groups in Syria and preserving their rights in the future, as well as the importance of trying to negotiate a peaceful political transition in Syria, which is what we are attempting to do.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

In his recent answer, the Foreign Secretary reiterated his support for the Annan plan, but only last week the UN was forced to suspend the observer mission in Syria. In the light of that suspension, does he accept what is already clear to many people on the ground in Syria—namely, that the Annan plan is simply not working? Will he set out today the steps beyond the Annan plan that the UK is now advocating that the international community take to bring about a cessation to the violence in Syria?

[Mr Hague]

I accepted, some time ago, that the Annan plan was not working. It is not working at all at the moment, but it would be wrong to give up completely on the plan, because the road to any peaceful settlement in Syria will be through either the Annan plan or something very similar to it. It is therefore important to persist with those efforts, and we are doing that particularly in our talks with Russia. I met the Russian Foreign Minister again in Kabul last week, and the Prime Minister has met President Putin in the past 24 hours to pursue this matter further. We are seeking international agreement, including with Russia, on how to ensure the implementation of the Annan plan. We are ready to take that matter forward at the UN Security Council or in a contact group, or in both together. Of course, if all those efforts fail, we will want to return to the UN Security Council, as well as greatly to intensify our support for the opposition and to see more sweeping sanctions from across the world.

Syria

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

Indeed, Mr Speaker.

There is one final question that I should like to pose to the Foreign Secretary in the light of his remarks. What thought has been given to creating large humanitarian enclaves for civilians in neighbouring countries—safe areas in countries such as Turkey—given that the humanitarian crisis is as serious as he suggested?

[Mr Hague]

As the right hon. Gentleman said, the facts about the terrible atrocities that have been committed speak for themselves. He illustrated the fact that support for the work of the UN monitors and abhorrence of the crimes that have been committed are universal across all political parties and all shades of opinion in this country. He agreed, too, that the clear responsibility for the crisis lies with the Assad regime.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Annan plan and the possibility of increasing the number of monitors. I have discussed that possibility with Kofi Annan several times. Certainly the United Kingdom would support an increase in the number of monitors if Kofi Annan were to ask for it. I will have a discussion with him again later today, and we will see what his latest assessment is. He points out, and we have to remember, that this is not a peacekeeping force. It was meant to monitor a ceasefire that had been agreed, so it is not a case of just increasing the size of a peacekeeping force. Of course, the monitors are going into very dangerous situations.

The mandate from the existing UN resolution would expire on 20 July, which is pertinent to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about a deadline. I do not think it is wise to set an arbitrary deadline. If we said now that the Annan plan had so many days or weeks and found the day before that deadline expired that it was possible to hold an international conference to push the Annan plan, that would not necessarily be wise. Inevitably, the need to review the work of the monitors before 20 July will focus minds in the UN Security Council well before that on whether it is feasible or right to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the comments by my noble Friend Lord Ashdown. From my memory of that article, I think his argument was that we should focus on other countries’ responsibility for addressing the situation rather than emphasising our own responsibility. I do not think he was criticising any of the diplomatic moves we have made. A more extended quotation might have been a good idea at that point in the right hon. Gentleman’s questions.

On the question of discouraging oil purchases, of course we do that. We discourage all countries and I have taken the matter up with Foreign Ministers of many countries filling in for the EU sanctions on Syrian oil. The Syrians have found their particular type of heavy grade oil difficult to sell in other markets, so the income of the regime has been substantially reduced by the EU sanctions. In Istanbul last week, I also raised with Arab Ministers the enforcement of Arab League sanctions and the case for Arab nations adopting sanctions similar to those of the European Union.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about defections, which take place from army units and seem to happen on a regular basis. The Assad regime tries to prevent high-level defections, not only by placing people under house arrest but by threatening the families of anyone who manages to defect from the regime. It makes it extremely difficult for them to do so. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the names of army officers and those responsible for crimes, and of course some have been added to each list of EU sanctions. I will also consider his further point about whether more can be done to publicise those names.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the G20. The agenda of the formal meetings of the G20 will be for the Mexican presidency to finalise, but whether or not the subject is on the formal agenda there will be many bilateral meetings. It is possible for leaders to discuss whatever they wish, and the Prime Minister will therefore certainly be discussing Syria in and around the G20 meetings.

Our dialogue with Russia on this subject is continuous, and I think it is fair to say that the Russian position has certainly shifted its emphasis and perhaps its substance to some degree, which increasingly emphasises that the Russians are not wedded to Assad and that they want to see stability in Syria. The most persuasive thing for them is not what any of us say but the fact that the situation is clearly deteriorating and that Syria is on the edge of the things we have described—collapse or full civil war. That is a terrible scenario for all the nations of the United Nations Security Council and for all who wish to see international peace and security. Russia can see that deterioration, too, and that is why they have made their proposals, to which we are unable to agree immediately for the reasons I have given, for an international conference. Russian diplomacy is being adjusted as the days go by, and my judgment is that it is worth continuing that dialogue with Russia and continuing to try to move them towards insistence that the regime implement the Annan plan.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about large humanitarian enclaves. That would require the willingness of neighbouring countries, many of which are doing very good work in looking after the refugees on their soil—26,000 in Turkey, more than 22,000 in Jordan and 17,000 in Lebanon, which are large numbers in any case. People are taking refuge in those countries and we are helping to provide humanitarian assistance through international agencies. People are finding refuge in neighbouring countries, but issues such as safe areas or enclaves in Syria—that is perhaps not what he was suggesting—are a different matter. As I have said, we are not ruling out any option for the future but such safe areas would have to be truly safe and effective. Making them safe and effective raises all the issues about military intervention with which the House is familiar.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend knows that we are fully in favour of a process of reconciliation and that the British Government have been encouraging that—the last Government did it towards the end of their term of office and this Government have continued to do so. However, a successful reconciliation requires a readiness to reconcile on the part of the other party as well, and that has been lacking from the Taliban so far. I suspect that it would be even more lacking if we were to relax our military efforts and let the Taliban think that they could have success entirely on the battlefield.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I have listened with care to the latest answer that the Foreign Secretary has given. I welcome what seems to be his implication that these latest attacks do not detract from the case for dialogue with elements of the insurgency. However, could he tell the House what work is being done and what progress is being made—specifically, by the Afghan Government, the US Government and the British Government—in pursuit of that goal?

[Mr Hague]

Progress has been made, and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the announcement of a Taliban political office in Qatar. That was an indication of a readiness to begin a process of reconciliation. Since then, the Taliban have suspended that intention. It is not surprising that efforts at reconciliation go backwards and forwards, or that sometimes there is a readiness to engage and sometimes they move back from that. That does not mean that we stop our efforts. The important thing is to maintain all our efforts to improve security and to build a viable state in Afghanistan so that, whether or not reconciliation succeeds, the Afghan national security forces are able to maintain security in their country.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me turn specifically to the NATO summit in Chicago in May, which has already been mentioned. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the summit needs to agree a co-ordinated timetable for the withdrawal of NATO forces, a stable and sustainable funding arrangement for Afghan security forces and a status of forces agreement on the role of any international forces, post-2014? Does he also agree that, as well as setting those three goals, the summit must achieve genuine progress on a stable political settlement in Afghanistan, and specifically on bringing the regional powers on board in a more meaningful way than has been achieved to date?

[Mr Hague]

All those things are important, of course. The timetable was set by the Lisbon summit in November 2010, and as I have said, we are sticking to it. The right hon. Gentleman’s point about funding is very important, and we are doing a lot of work to ensure that there is a clear plan and a clear commitment from sufficient countries for the funding of the Afghan national security forces after 2014. I regard that as of the highest importance in regard to what we agree in Chicago. Of course there will be a network of bilateral agreements for forces, as well as any arrangements with NATO and ISAF, including our own commitment to having an officer training academy in Afghanistan after 2014. We also continue to promote a political settlement alongside all that, but the funding arrangements will be of the greatest importance in Chicago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, we have very tough sanctions in place, imposed through the European Union, and the Arab League has sanctions of its own. But as he will also know, some Arab League countries do not implement, or do not fully implement, those sanctions, particularly countries that are close to Syria, such as Iraq. For that reason, it is extremely difficult to impose the general blockade that my right hon. and learned Friend talks about, and arms shipments continue to reach Syria from Russia as well. Cutting off all such arms supplies without the co-operation of the countries I have mentioned is not possible. What we now have to do is try to ensure that the terms of the UN Security Council resolution are met, and clearly warn the Assad regime that if they are not met, we will be able to return to the Security Council for further measures.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Let me stay on the issue of the Security Council resolution, and echo the words of praise for the UK mission in New York. We welcome the authorising of the deployment of observers from the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the fact that, as I understand it, members of the group have now started arriving in Damascus, but will the Foreign Secretary say when he expects the observer group to be up to full strength, when it will begin reporting back, and what his personal assessment is of the chances of its being able to go about its work peaceably?

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to sound a sceptical note about the group’s ability to go about their work, as the Assad regime did not fully co-operate with the Arab League observers who were in the country previously. That shows the importance of passing, in the Security Council resolution, clear language about “unhindered deployment of…personnel”, full

“unimpeded and immediate freedom of movement”,

as well as “unobstructed communications” and a requirement to be able

“to freely and privately communicate with individuals throughout Syria”.

The observers will therefore be able to report on a continuous basis on whether these terms are being met, and the Security Council will then be able to debate those terms. They are terms that have been agreed by Russia and China as well as by countries such as ours. The expansion of this monitoring team into a team of several hundred, rather than 30, depends on the observance of the ceasefire, what progress is made over the coming days, and the passage of a further UN Security Council resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I have had many discussions over the last week with Turkey and Arab nations on the margins of our Somalia conference, in Tunis and at other meetings. That idea has been debated—in public, never mind in private—but the difficulty of establishing safe areas without agreement with the country concerned is considerable. Without such agreement, military force will be required—and sufficient military to force to be wholly effective, because one of the worst things we could do, I believe, is to tell people that they might be safe and be unable to provide that safety to them. None of those discussions, therefore, have led to the idea being adopted in the international community.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Opposition welcome the fact that the EU yesterday announced further sanctions on Syria. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that those sanctions included travel bans on a further seven close associates of President Assad? If that is correct, does he agree that the public naming of many more individuals in that way, specifically including military commanders presently engaged in murder and slaughter in Homs, would help to sharpen the choice for individual members of the security apparatus?

[Mr Hague]

Yes—I agree in general. We adopted a number of measures yesterday in Brussels, including sanctions on the Central Bank of Syria. As the right hon. Gentleman says, we also extended by another seven names the list, which is now more than 150 strong, of individuals and entities on whom we have restrictions, travel bans and asset freezes. We are entirely open to extending that list further, but we of course take care to ensure that we are sure of our ground and that those individuals are actually complicit in the regime’s repression. As further evidence accumulates, we will certainly want to add to that list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I do agree with that. As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has often pointed out, we have made very strong representations to the Israeli Government whenever settlements have been announced in recent times. Settlements are on occupied land, they are illegal—that is the view of almost the whole of the rest of the world—and this is an issue that Israel must address.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Given the recent violence in Afghanistan in response to the unintentional burning of the Koran at a United States air base, and given that it took some time for President Karzai to call for an end to the violence, are the Government fully satisfied with the efforts that he is making to bring the situation fully under control?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. The British Government, along with our partners, condemn any behaviour that disrespects any religion. We welcome the apology from President Obama to President Karzai, which demonstrated sincere regret for the incident—which was, I believe, a genuine mistake, as was reflected in the right hon. Gentleman’s question—and we welcome the calls for calm from the Afghan Government. We echo President Karzai’s call to the Afghan people, as he put it,

“not to allow the enemies of peace to exploit the opportunity for their own ends”.

[Mr Alexander]

Is the Foreign Secretary fully satisfied more generally with the work that President Karzai is doing? The objective of achieving peace is one that we all share, but according to the latest reports there are continuing concerns about corruption, governance and, more broadly, the provision of services and security.

[Mr Hague]

Of course there are always things that we are urging the Afghanistan Government to do, and addressing accusations of corruption and improving governance—both from Kabul and around the country—are important examples. However, our relations with the Afghanistan Government are very good. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister and President Karzai met a month ago to sign a long-term enduring partnership between our countries, which demonstrates the good basis of trust between our Governments.

Afghanistan

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. Of course, the context of this discussion is the number of British personnel currently serving in Afghanistan—almost 10,000—who are harnessing their professionalism and expertise to the task of securing a stable Afghanistan that will not threaten this country’s security again. Their bravery is rightly and regularly praised in the House, but each time it is a genuine and sincere reflection of the admiration on both sides of this House for the work they do on our behalf.

The Foreign Secretary knows that we supported the mission in Afghanistan in government and continue to do so in opposition. We are keen to discuss these issues in a spirit of shared support for the mission, but it is also the Opposition’s job to scrutinise, and that task is especially important when the lives of our servicemen and women are at stake. I hope that he will see my questions in that spirit.

I will divide my questions between the security situation and the diplomatic effort. On the security situation, the Foreign Secretary has just told the House:

“British and ISAF troops will continue to perform combat roles until the end of 2014.”

How is that consistent with the comments of the American Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, who only last week said:

“Hopefully by mid- to the latter part of 2013 we’ll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advice and assist role”?

Incidentally, that comment was confirmed by the Prime Minister’s official spokesman, but there was no statement to the House. Given the integrated nature of ISAF’s work, both in Helmand and across Afghanistan, is the Foreign Secretary seriously suggesting that British military personnel will be involved in combat operations for potentially between a year and 18 months after our American allies have transferred from combat operations to providing training, advice and assistance?

What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the military implications of America’s decision to wind down combat operations more than a year before the previously stated deadline for withdrawal? What is his assessment of the impact on the ISAF mission’s timetable for transition of the announcement in January by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, that French troops will now leave Afghanistan by the end of 2013?

The statement comes shortly after the publication of a leaked NATO document cataloguing the depth of links and assistance between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani security services. The report also details widespread collaboration between the insurgents and the Afghan police and military, so what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the findings of the report, and how does he reconcile its bleak findings with his description today that

“we are making steady progress”?

The Foreign Secretary has just told the House:

“For the first time since 2006, year on year violence levels decreased across Afghanistan in 2011.”

How does he reconcile that statement with the report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan only last week that indicated that the number of civilians killed and injured has risen for the fifth year running, with the majority of deaths caused by insurgents? The report documented 3,021 civilian deaths in 2011, compared with 2,790 in 2010 and 2,412 in 2009.

The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that 120 British troops will be based at the Afghan national academy. Will he reassure the House that all necessary force protection measures will be in place for them at that time? He stated that the Afghan national army now numbers 170,000. Will he confirm how large the British Government now expect the Afghan national army to be at the time of transition in 2014 and say a little more about how these force levels are to be financed in the light of the deficits he spoke of?

Let me now turn briefly to the diplomatic effort. We have expressed our concern in the past that there was not an oral statement to the House following the Bonn conference in December and that, despite the intense effort required in these critical months, the Prime Minister has not made a statement on Afghanistan to the House for many months. It is vital that the scale of our military effort is matched by diplomatic efforts. The Foreign Secretary spoke of November’s Istanbul conference, but will he set out for the House what sustained efforts are being made to co-ordinate the regional players, such as China and Pakistan, and bind them into the work of securing a stable and durable peace?

The Foreign Secretary spoke of the Taliban’s willingness to participate in a political office in Qatar. While it is suggested that only talks about talks are now under way, what progress is being made on the broader and more inclusive political settlement needed within Afghanistan for a stable state post-2014? Specifically, will he update the House on what progress has been made by the Afghan High Peace Council, established at the London conference in 2010, on reaching a consensus on constitutional arrangements and how it is ensuring that women have a proper role in Afghanistan’s future?

Finally, given the timetable for transition, will the Foreign Secretary provide the House with the British Government’s assessment of the capacity of the Afghan state to undertake, as is planned, free and fair presidential elections during 2014?

We now have an end date in Afghanistan, but it is through urgent diplomatic work that we can also have an end state worthy of the sacrifice endured during this long decade.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. He rightly pays tribute to the bravery of our armed forces and reflects how sincere those tributes always are in this House, particularly from those of us on both sides who have travelled in Afghanistan and seen the work of our armed services and what happens in field hospitals. We recognise the extraordinary commitment of all involved. He is quite right to point out again—I am grateful to him for it—from the Opposition Benches that those operations enjoy support across the House, and I certainly take his questions in the spirit in which they are obviously intended.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about reconciling what I have said today with what the US Defence Secretary has said over the past couple of weeks. The US Defence Secretary has stressed that US forces will remain combat-capable and ready in Afghanistan to the end of 2014, and he has also said very clearly:

“We’ve got to stick to the Lisbon strategy. The United States has a very strong commitment to Lisbon and to the strategy that was laid out there.”

That strategy involves withdrawing from a combat role after the end of 2014.

Sometimes, in the reporting of different comments, there is confusion between lead responsibility and full responsibility. As I said in my statement, however, we expect Afghan forces to have lead responsibility throughout Afghanistan in mid to late 2013, and I also reflected on how they have lead responsibility for many operations now in Helmand. Full responsibility—that is, full transition to Afghan security control—is from the end of 2014, so we are not conscious of any difference between the approach of the United States, and its intentions for its armed forces, and ours; nor would we want there to be any difference. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to express alarm at the idea of such a difference, which is not something that the Government intend or would accept.

The leaked document to which he refers should not have too much importance attributed to it. It was actually a collection of the views and various opinions of Taliban detainees held in custody, and it should not be taken as a necessarily accurate reflection of the overall strategic situation. I do not accept, therefore, that a leaked document of Taliban views contradicts everything I have said in this statement about the steady progress that is being made—steady progress always qualified by my saying how fragile it is in some areas, and how the picture has been varied.

That brings me to the right hon. Gentleman’s next question, because he asks about the number of incidents. It has risen over the past year in Regional Command East and Regional Command South West, but it has gone down in Regional Command South, down particularly sharply in Helmand, our own area of responsibilities, and down on average throughout the country. It is true also, nevertheless, that some of those incidents have been considerable attacks and cost civilian lives. About 80% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by insurgent activity, and that is why the civilian casualty figures are as he cites—something, therefore, that we cannot at all be complacent about.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the academy, and I can of course assure him that the necessary protection will be in place. The academy will be on the same site as the United States academy, and full protection will be afforded to it.

On the strength of Afghan national security forces, they will be built up, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to a total strength of 352,000. Decisions will be made—probably at the NATO summit in Chicago, which the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and I will attend—about the strength of Afghan national security forces in later years, and about what the international community’s financial contribution will be. We certainly expect the United Kingdom to make a significant contribution to those forces after 2014.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about oral statements, but I must gently point out that we introduced the quarterly statements on Afghanistan, having called for them for a long time during the previous Parliament, and indeed a monthly report to Parliament. We will always consider requests for further statements, but we have a great deal more statements on the matter than was the case in the previous Parliament.

On regional efforts, the Istanbul meeting was important, and the forthcoming economic co-operation conference that I mentioned will be important also in binding in the partners, but at the Bonn conference it was striking how the regional partners were committed to economic and development co-operation with Afghanistan, as well as all of us who make such a large security contribution.

It would not be fair to say that a consensus on the future, which the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly looks for in Afghanistan on constitutional arrangements, has yet been reached, but the meeting of the Loya Jirga was important progress, as is the establishment of the Taliban’s political office, although that is at an early stage. It does not indicate necessarily that they have signed up to the idea of reconciliation overall, nor that they are united on it, but it is one indication of progress.

The conduct of forthcoming elections, including the presidential one, will be a very important factor in Afghanistan’s political future and in its stability. We saw in the most recent round of elections—the presidential and parliamentary elections in Afghanistan—an improvement in the holding of free and fair elections conducted in an orderly way. We look for another improvement in the next presidential election.

Syria

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome this opportunity for the House to discuss the situation in Syria, and I am grateful that the Foreign Secretary agreed to make a statement this afternoon. It was made in the dark shadow of the brutal slaughter continuing even today, with news of scores more people murdered in Homs in the last 24 hours alone.

Let us all be clear that responsibility for the deaths of these innocent people lies at the door of President Assad and his murderous regime. There is clear agreement across the House and much of the international community that the regime has no future, and that Assad must go. The tragedy is that, notwithstanding that fact, the slaughter continues. For the international community, condemnation is not enough; comprehensive diplomatic efforts are required, which is why the recent failure to reach agreement in the Security Council, of which the Foreign Secretary has just spoken, is such a stain on the conscience of the world. I therefore welcome the points that he made setting out the next steps that the British Government will take to seek to resolve this grave crisis.

I have not, in recent days, made any criticism of the Government over their actions to date, and I will not do so in this response. Rather, in a spirit of shared abhorrence and determination, I want to ask the Foreign Secretary a few questions. I share his disappointment at the stance taken by Russia and China. Will he set out more fully to the House what steps are now being taken to convince them of the need for international consensus? In particular, will he tell the House what conversations he has had with Sergei Lavrov since the Security Council vote? In advance of the Russian Foreign Minister’s meeting in Damascus tomorrow with President Assad, has the Foreign Secretary sought or received any assurances that in that meeting the Russian Foreign Minister will at least reflect the wider will of the international community that Assad must go?

I welcome the emphasis that the Foreign Secretary has placed on the work of the Arab League in this crisis, and the prospect of a special envoy being appointed, and indeed a Friends of Syria Group being established. Will he now press for a joint Arab League-European Union summit to be held in the weeks ahead, in order to co-ordinate best the vital steps that now need to be taken? Can the Foreign Secretary give any more information about the level of ambition he is aiming for at the meeting on 27 February, where possible further sanctions will be discussed? Separately, will he inform the House how recently he has spoken to his Turkish counterpart about the steps that Turkey could—and we hope would—be taking to increase further peaceful pressure on Assad?

In his statement, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the human suffering now being endured in Syria. There are reports of even more people fleeing across the borders of Syria into neighbouring countries, and refugee camps set up along the borders are struggling to meet the increasing demands. Can the Foreign Secretary say what conversations he has held with the Secretary of State for International Development on this matter, and confirm to the House who in Government is leading on the humanitarian response to the crisis? Have the Government requested a meeting of the Council of EU Development Ministers to ensure a co-ordinated response to the growing threat of a full-blown humanitarian crisis?

I wrote to the Foreign Secretary at the weekend about the attack on the Syrian embassy in London. While we share an undoubted revulsion at the present actions of the Assad regime, I am sure that the Government would agree that the protection of foreign embassies on our soil is a basic principle of international law that must be upheld. Let me take this opportunity to praise the bravery of the officers on duty outside the Syrian embassy this weekend. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the officers who were hospitalised. We wish them a speedy recovery. Will the Foreign Secretary outline what discussions took place between him, the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan police ahead of 3 February about protecting the Syrian embassy, in the light of reports of expected protests and attack? Were any specific measures taken or contingency plans put in place, in the light of the reports of Syrian opposition forces calling on Syrians living abroad to protest outside their embassies?

Shortly before today’s statement, word reached us that the US had closed its embassy in Damascus and withdrawn all diplomatic staff from Syria. The Foreign Secretary made it clear in his statement that our ambassador in Damascus had been recalled for talks. Will he outline to the House what the British Government’s assessment is of the utility of the existing diplomatic channels, in the light of the continuing violence?

We welcome the steps that the Government have already taken to try to increase the pressure on, and deepen the isolation of, President Assad and the Syrian authorities. However, I fear that this weekend’s Security Council veto has been taken as a green light for sustained slaughter by the Assad regime. That is why efforts must now be redoubled to end the violence and bring a peaceful resolution to the past 11 months of bloodshed.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has referred, rightly, to the bloodshed over the last 24 hours and the agreement that exists across the House—and, indeed, across so much of the international community—that the regime in Syria has no future. He has spoken, as I have, of the need for comprehensive diplomatic efforts. He has no criticism of what the Government have done so far, and obviously I am grateful for that.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there should be an EU-Arab League summit. That is indeed one of the possibilities for bringing together a wider group of nations to address the crisis, but I think it would be preferable to have a meeting that went beyond the European Union and the Arab League, as there are also African nations that have been supportive at the Security Council, as well as Latin American nations. It is therefore probably best to have as inclusive an international gathering and group as possible, going beyond Europe and the Arab world. That would be my preference, and we are in discussion with the Arab League and others about that.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the level of ambition for the EU meeting on 27 February. Most of the measures that we can take in relation to Syria we have now taken. We have had 11 rounds of sanctions, including a complete oil embargo, which we introduced some months ago. We have placed sanctions on well over 100 individuals and entities. There will be further tightening up of the sanctions that we can introduce, but I stress that most of the sanctions that we can introduce we already have introduced. I do not want to exaggerate what we will be able to do on 27 February,

The right hon. Gentleman asked about contact with some of the other Foreign Ministers whom I did not mention in my statement. I have very regular consultations with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, about this matter. Last Tuesday I spoke to him from New York while I was there; that was my most recent consultation with him. Turkey was a co-sponsor of the resolution, and I expect it to be a very active participant in the new informal international grouping that we expect to be formed.

As for the steps to be taken with Russia and China, we have daily conversations with them at the Security Council, and I have had many discussions with my Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, about the situation in Syria. Although I will not have spoken to him between the Security Council vote and his visit tomorrow, I shall want to speak to him after his visit. He has been speaking to the secretary-general of the Arab League, so I am well in touch with what he has in mind for his visit, but clearly the Russians are on a different track here from the rest of us, so it has been difficult to work with them on such contacts with Syria. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary gives regular attention to the matter, and Britain has contributed funds to the International Committee of the Red Cross to help people who have been displaced. My right hon. Friend is, of course, ready to work with other countries on any further developments in that regard.

The right hon. Gentleman correctly praised the Metropolitan police, who have been involved in protecting the Syrian embassy. There are regular meetings, including a monthly review meeting between the Home Office and the Foreign Office, on the protection of all embassies. There are well-laid contingency plans in the case of the Syrian embassy, which were put into operation this weekend. There were about 150 protesters there on Saturday, three of whom, by climbing up scaffolding, managed to enter a first-floor window of the embassy. The police presence was further reinforced, and has continued. It will be reviewed today, but I think that the police did a very good job in protecting the embassy, and the normal channels between the Foreign Office and the Home Office are working well.

The right hon. Gentleman asked for an assessment of the utility of our diplomatic channels. I was discussing that with our ambassador in Damascus on the phone just before I came into the Chamber. He has heard—as the House will have heard—the announcement that the American embassy has been closed. We have been aware for some days that it would close today. That was done primarily on security grounds. Our embassy premises are in a different situation, and their security is slightly easier to maintain. We will review all options. As I have said, we have recalled our ambassador, and clearly we are doing that so that we can review all options.

I should prefer us to act in concert with a wide number of other nations if we make a further change to our diplomatic relations with Syria, so we will stay close to our partners in the Arab world and the European Union. I am not ruling anything out, but the House will understand that there are advantages in maintaining an embassy for as long as we can, such as being able to understand the situation on the ground, being able to discuss the situation with a variety of people in Syria, and being able to impress on some members of the regime the gravity of the situation that they have got themselves into. I am not, at the moment, announcing any closure of our embassy, but we will keep the position under close review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely and very evidently right that that does not help peace or the two-state solution that we all so urgently want to see. We call again for such rocket attacks on Israel to end.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary met the Palestinian President yesterday. In my later discussions with the President, he was at pains to emphasise the urgent need to make substantive progress in the coming days in the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary mentioned are taking place in Jordan. In the light of this urgency, when did the Foreign Secretary last speak with his Israeli counterpart and what steps are the British Government taking to ensure that ongoing Israeli settlement expansion is not allowed to be a reason for these crucial talks to be derailed?

[Mr Hague]

I also spoke yesterday to the Israeli Government, to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Meridor—I speak sometimes to him and sometimes to my counterpart, Mr Lieberman. On this occasion I called Mr Meridor to stress the need for Israel to respond positively in the negotiations and put forward its own proposals, and I made the case, as I have often done in this House, that Israel needs to make a more decisive and generous offer than we have seen for some years in order to be able to make progress. The Israeli Government are in no doubt about our views and we urge both sides to continue with these talks and not to be so wedded to the 26 January deadline that the opportunity to continue the talks is lost.

[Mr Alexander]

I welcome the tenor of yesterday’s conversation with Deputy Prime Minister Meridor. In an earlier answer the Foreign Secretary mentioned the reconciliation process within the Palestinian community. Alongside the immediate prospects for the latest round of talks, will he give the Government’s assessment of the possible implications of a deal reached between Hamas and Fatah? Given Hamas’s stated position on Israel and the peace process, will he also give an undertaking that any internal political agreement reached within the Palestinian community needs to be assessed in terms of the external political implications on the prospects for peace in the wider region?

[Mr Hague]

I agree with that. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is very important that the Palestinian Authority are constituted in a way that allows them to conduct negotiations with Israel. That includes, importantly, recognising the previous agreements entered into by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and that is a key point, so we hope that that will be continue to be the position of the Palestinian Authority. Of course, reconciliation is meant to pave the way for elections among Palestinians, and we cannot at this stage pre-judge or predict the outcome of those elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

We are focusing on that threat. We are sharing with Nigeria our expertise on counter-terrorism policy and on legal frameworks. We are also providing assistance with specific capabilities such as managing the consequences of a terrorist attack. In all of this, we are in close touch with our partners in the European Union and the United States. We are also supporting programmes in the north of Nigeria to address the root causes of insecurity, such as poverty and social inequality.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary give the House his assessment of the calls by leading members of the Free Syrian army for the Arab League to refer the issue of Syria to the United Nations Security Council? In the light of the difficulties encountered by the Arab League observer mission, and on the basis of the aforementioned discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov, does the Foreign Secretary believe that there is any realistic prospect of the Russian Government altering their stance on Syria?

[Mr Hague]

I think that it would be right for the Arab League to bring its concerns and any decision that it makes at its forthcoming meetings—it has two coming up, on the 19th and 22nd—to the UN Secretary-General and UN Security Council. Over recent weeks, I have encouraged the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Mr al-Arabi, to bring Arab concerns directly to the Security Council, because I believe that the time is long overdue for the Security Council to be able to speak on Syria with a united voice. The right hon. Gentleman will recall—his question partly referred to this—that when we last tried to do so, on 4 October, our resolution was vetoed by Russia and China. I am not optimistic that the situation with regard to Russia’s attitude would be different at the moment, but we will continue to discuss the matter with Russia. It would help if the Arab League were to come to the UN directly with its concerns.

British Embassy (Tehran)

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about events in Tehran.

Shortly after 3 o’clock Tehran time yesterday, approximately 200 demonstrators overran the city-centre compound of our embassy in Tehran. The majority of demonstrators were from a student Basij militia organisation. We should be clear from the outset that that is an organisation controlled by elements of the Iranian regime.

The demonstrators proceeded systematically to vandalise and loot the homes of staff located on the site and the ambassador’s residence. They destroyed furniture, stole property, including the personal possessions of our staff, and set fire to the main embassy office building.

Simultaneously, our second embassy compound at Gulhaq in north Tehran also came under attack, and staff homes there were also attacked and looted. Our staff immediately evacuated the buildings affected and took refuge in safe areas of the compound. It was not until yesterday evening that we received confirmation that the Iranian diplomatic police had belatedly assisted at both compounds, and that all our staff were accounted for.

I wish to pay a fulsome tribute to our ambassador and his staff, who throughout those hours of danger behaved with the utmost calm and professionalism and followed well developed contingency plans. The Prime Minister and I have spoken to him several times in the past 24 hours and passed on our thanks to the UK-based and locally engaged members of his team.

It will be obvious to the whole House and the whole world that these events are a grave violation of the Vienna convention, which states that a host state is required to protect the premises of a diplomatic mission against any intrusion, damage or disturbance. This is a breach of international responsibilities of which any nation should be ashamed.

It is true, of course, that relations between Britain and Iran are difficult, as they are to varying degrees between Iran and many other nations. We publicly differ with Iran over its nuclear programme and on human rights, and we make no secret of our views. We have been foremost among those nations arguing for peaceful legitimate pressure to be intensified on Iran in the light of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s “deep and increasing concern” about the Iranian nuclear programme, including its “possible military dimensions”.

But we should be absolutely clear that no difficulty in relations can ever excuse in any way or under any circumstances the failure to protect diplomatic staff and diplomatic premises. Iran is a country where Opposition leaders are under house arrest, where more than 500 people have been executed so far this year and where genuine protest is ruthlessly stamped on. The idea that the Iranian authorities could not have protected our embassy, or that this assault could have taken place without some degree of regime consent, is fanciful.

Yesterday, I called the Iranian Foreign Minister to protest in the strongest terms about the events and to demand immediate steps to ensure the safety of our staff and of both embassy compounds. He said that he was sorry for what had happened and that action would be taken in response. The Iranian chargé d’affaires in London was summoned to the Foreign Office to reinforce those messages, and Cobra met yesterday afternoon and again this morning with the Prime Minister in the chair.

The UN Security Council issued a statement condemning the attack on our embassy in the strongest terms and calling on the Iranian authorities to

“protect diplomatic and consular property and personnel”.

I am grateful for the strong statements of concern and support from the United States, the European Union, Germany, Poland, Russia, China and many other nations. I particularly wish to thank France for the robust support that it has given us in every way, and for the practical assistance and accommodation that it has provided to our staff in Tehran.

Throughout Europe, Iranian ambassadors have been summoned to receive strong protests. In the words of the Foreign Minister of Austria:

“With the attack on the British Embassy, Iran is now on the verge of placing itself completely outside of the framework of international law. If Iran thinks it can undermine European solidarity through such actions, it is wrong.”

I am grateful to our other friends in the region itself, and particularly to the United Arab Emirates for its practical help. I am grateful also to the Foreign Minister of Turkey for his prompt and helpful intervention in these matters last night.

The safety of our staff and of other British nationals in Iran is our highest priority. We have now closed the British embassy in Tehran. We have decided to evacuate all our staff, and as of the last few minutes, the last of our UK-based staff has now left Iran.

We will work with friendly countries to ensure that residual British interests are protected and that urgent consular assistance is available to British nationals. We advise against all but essential travel to Iran. At present, there are no indications that British nationals outside the embassy are being targeted in any way. Those requiring urgent consular assistance will receive help from other EU missions in Tehran.

But that clearly cannot be the end of the matter, and the next few paragraphs of my statement are not in the written version being circulated to the House, because the timing of this announcement had to be consistent with the safety of our staff.

The Iranian chargé in London is being informed now that we require the immediate closure of the Iranian embassy in London, and that all Iranian diplomatic staff must leave the United Kingdom within the next 48 hours. If any country makes it impossible for us to operate on their soil, they cannot expect to have a functioning embassy here. This does not amount to the severing of diplomatic relations in their entirety. It is action that reduces our relations with Iran to the lowest level consistent with the maintenance of diplomatic relations.

The House will understand that it remains desirable for British representatives to be in contact with Iranian representatives—for instance, as part of any negotiations about their nuclear programme or to discuss human rights—but it does mean that both embassies will be closed. We wish to make it absolutely clear to Iran and to any other nation that such action against our embassies and such a flagrant breach of international responsibilities is totally unacceptable to the United Kingdom.

Later today and tomorrow I will attend the meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, when we will discuss these events and further action that needs to be taken in the light of Iran’s continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons programme.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a leading member of the European Union, we are proud of the role that our country plays in maintaining international peace and security and in standing up for human rights all over the world. If the Iranian Government think that we will be diverted from those responsibilities by the intimidation of our embassy staff, they will be making a serious mistake.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for allowing me advance sight of it. It is indeed right that we address the issues of the assault on the British embassy in Tehran along with other important business before the House today.

I, of course, begin by expressing my clear and unequivocal condemnation of the deplorable attacks that we witnessed yesterday in Tehran, and associate all Opposition Members with the words yesterday of the Foreign Secretary and of the Prime Minister on the issue.

Let me deal with the welfare of the UK diplomatic staff. I commend the British ambassador and his whole team on their handling of the situation and the unyielding professionalism and, indeed, bravery that they have shown at this extremely difficult time. Our thoughts are also with the staff and the families who were affected by yesterday’s assaults. Are appropriate steps being taken to safeguard locally engaged staff who have supported UK-based staff during the period in which the British embassy in Tehran has been operational?

With regard to responsibility for the assault, the Iranian Government clearly failed to take adequate measures to protect our embassy, our staff and our property. Their international responsibilities, including those under the Vienna convention, are well established. The demonstrations were co-ordinated, not coincidental, and the suggestion that the regime, or at least elements within it, were unaware of some of the actions stretches credulity. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s confirmation that he immediately summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires to the Foreign Office yesterday and the condemnation issued by our colleagues in the European Union and the UN Security Council.

Let me turn to the context and consequences of yesterday’s events. The backdrop was the unequivocal International Atomic Energy Agency report published earlier this month, which made it clear that there is accumulating evidence for the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme. In response to the report, the UK, along with Canada and the United States, sought to increase peaceful diplomatic pressure on Iran, and only last week the Chancellor announced the severing of all ties with Iranian banks, including the Central Bank of Iran. As a result of these measures, the Iranian Parliament approved a Bill three days ago requiring Iran and Britain to withdraw their ambassadors and downgrade the status of the two countries’ diplomatic ties.

That was the immediate context of yesterday’s assault, but what about the consequences? As we have just heard, British diplomats are thankfully on their way home and the embassy has been closed. The Foreign Secretary has just informed the House that, in response to the events, the Iranian chargé d’affaires has been told to leave the UK and Iran’s embassy in London will be closed forthwith. The safety and security of UK diplomatic staff and other UK nationals must be a paramount consideration, but can the Foreign Secretary set out how dialogue will be maintained in the light of these developments? If the effect of yesterday’s events is to extinguish dialogue—albeit that dialogue on human rights and the nuclear dossier is proving extremely difficult at present—the elements within the regime that seek conflict and confrontation would be strengthened. In the light of the diplomatic changes, what mechanisms for dialogue will remain open?

The Opposition agree that Britain’s national interest is best served by pursuing a twin-track approach to Iran and its nuclear ambitions, so will the Foreign Secretary be a little clearer when he responds on how the first part of that approach, the engagement strategy, will continue in the light of the downgrading of diplomatic relations? Does he agree that, notwithstanding yesterday’s truly deplorable assault on the embassy, a clear-eyed sense of Britain’s national interest would resist in the weeks ahead a descent into ever more bellicose rhetoric and instead seek to find new means of taking forward the difficult but necessary dialogue? Does he also agree that in that dialogue we must be clear that such deplorable assaults on our embassy will not and must not alter our determination to take forward the diplomatic work with others in the international community to ensure that Iran upholds its responsibilities and obligations under international law?

Finally, will the Foreign Secretary consider returning to the House in the weeks or months ahead to make a more wide-ranging statement on Iran in calmer times and the approach that the Government now intend to take, given not only the immediate events and their consequences, which he has rightly come to the House to address, but the stalled progress on the E3 plus 3 process and the growing anxiety about Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has joined in the condemnation of these completely unacceptable acts and the commendation of our ambassador and his staff. He asked about the locally engaged staff. Other than security staff, locally engaged staff were not in the embassy compound yesterday because, in anticipation of the demonstrations, we had asked them not to come to work, so they were not involved in the violence and danger. We will, of course, look after them financially and have a continuing concern for their welfare, although it must be pointed out that, as former Foreign Secretaries will remember, our locally engaged staff in Tehran have unfortunately always been at some degree of risk because of previous unacceptable behaviour by the Iranian regime.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the wider context of the IAEA report and the action the Chancellor announced last week to sever financial links between our financial institutions and those of Iran. He asked how dialogue is to be maintained. Clearly these events make that more difficult. We do not take such decisions at all lightly, but after the events we have come to the conclusion that no assurance the Iranian regime could deliver on the safety of our staff could be believed. We have an overriding duty of care for those staff.

It is still possible in other forums to pursue dialogue with Iran where appropriate and meaningful. We are part of the E3 plus 3 process—the six nations that wish to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear programme—as is the United States, which does not have an embassy in Tehran. We meet the Iranians at various multilateral forums and organisations. I met the Iranian Foreign Minister at the UN General Assembly earlier this year. As I have said, we are not advocating the severing of all diplomatic relations. It is important that dialogue about these issues can continue, but it is not possible to maintain an embassy under these circumstances and in the light of these threats and actions.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about bellicose rhetoric. Of course, that is something that comes from Iran, not the United Kingdom. We heard that on Sunday in the Iranian Parliament there were chants of, “Death to Britain”, and it is unimaginable that we would ever treat any country in that way in our deliberations here in the House of Commons. It is the bellicose rhetoric coming from Iran that should come to an end. I am of course open to making other statements to the House in future and more wide-ranging considerations of our future policy towards Iran.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is very important, as we discussed a moment ago, that both sides embrace the opportunity of negotiations and respond to the Quartet timetable of substantive proposals by 26 January. In my view, that requires Israel to make that decisive offer, but it also requires Palestinians not to set preconditions for entering into such negotiations, and both sides to have the necessary spirit of compromise.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I join the Government in deploring the Iranian Government’s recent threats to downgrade diplomatic relations between Iran and the United Kingdom, and I welcome the sanctions imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which cut all ties with Iranian banks. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether those recent measures cover foreign subsidiaries of British banks, and foreign banks operating in the UK?

[Mr Hague]

The measures apply to the UK financial sector—to credit and financial institutions here in the United Kingdom. They do not, therefore, apply to foreign banks that happen to operate in the United Kingdom. Of course, the necessary defining measures will set that out in detail. The sanctions will be quite far-reaching, particularly as we are joining the United States and Canada in the measures, and I expect other countries to join in as well.

Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The House will welcome an update on events in the middle east, including the middle east peace process and Iran’s nuclear programme.

Let me begin by updating the House on the situation in Libya. The national transitional council declared Libya’s liberation on 23 October after the fall of Sirte and the death of Colonel Gaddafi, starting the country’s transition to democracy as set out in the council’s constitutional declaration. A new interim Libyan Prime Minister, Mr al-Kib, has been appointed, and we expect other Ministers to be appointed soon. The forming of a new Government is due to be followed within eight months by elections to a new National Congress.

These are historic achievements. NATO operations came to an end on Monday 31 October, following the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2016 on 27 October. The whole House will join me in paying tribute to our armed forces, whose contribution has saved many lives and helped to make the transition in Libya possible.

I visited Libya on 17 October to reopen our embassy and to hold talks with the Libyan authorities. We are providing communications and logistics support for Libya’s new police force and deploying a British policing adviser. We are also supporting attempts to locate missing anti-aircraft weapons and to clear mines in Misrata, and giving advice on destroying stocks of chemical weapons. We are encouraging the Libyan authorities in their efforts to reintegrate former fighters, bring together Libya’s security forces and provide employment opportunities. It is also important that the remaining International Criminal Court indictees, Saif al-Islam and Abdullah al-Senussi, be brought to justice before a court of law. We urge Libya’s neighbours to arrest and surrender any indictee on their territory.

We are determined to address legacy issues from the Gaddafi regime, including the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, the Lockerbie bombing and support for IRA terrorism. The Prime Minister discussed that with Prime Minister al-Kib on 5 November, and we welcome the new Libyan authorities’ willingness to work with us to try to close this chapter of tragic events.

While progress is made in Libya, in Syria the situation is deteriorating. More than 3,500 people have been killed since March according to the UN. On 2 November, the Arab League brokered an agreement with President Assad, which we welcomed. That plan required the Syrian Government to implement an immediate ceasefire and end all violence; to withdraw their military from all Syrian cities and towns; to release all prisoners and detainees; to provide access for Arab League committees and international media; and to begin comprehensive engagement with the opposition. Implementation was to take place within two weeks.

Apart from token measures, the Syrian Government have failed to implement the plan. Instead, the repression has escalated and at least 60 more people have died. The Arab League is due to meet this weekend to review the situation. We urge it to respond swiftly and decisively with diplomatic pressure to enforce the agreement, with the support of the international community. To us, these developments confirm that President Assad must step aside and allow others to take forward the political transition that the country desperately needs.

We will work to intensify pressure on Assad and his regime. On 14 October we reinforced EU measures to include sanctions against the Commercial Bank of Syria, the largest in the country. These sanctions, including the embargo on imports of oil from Syria into the EU, are already restricting sources of finance to the regime. We are working with our European partners on a further round of sanctions to be applied soon if the Syrian Government do not take immediate action to end the violence.

Turning to Iran, today the International Atomic Energy Agency will deliver its report on military aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. The report lays out clearly and objectively the evidence that the agency has uncovered of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons technology. The board of governors of the IAEA will convene later this month to consider these grave findings. The assertions of recent years by Iran that its nuclear programme is wholly for peaceful purposes are completely discredited by the report. Iran is ramping up its production of uranium enrichment to levels for which it has no plausible civilian use, but which could easily and quickly be converted into weapons-grade material. The uncovering of the recent plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States also shows Iran’s apparent willingness to sponsor terrorism outside its borders.

Iran needs to change direction. We want a negotiated solution and have extended the hand of reconciliation to Iran time and time again. We are prepared to have further talks, but only if Iran is prepared to engage in serious negotiations about its nuclear programme without preconditions. If not, we must continue to increase the pressure, and we are considering with our partners a range of additional measures to that effect. Iran’s actions not only run counter to the positive change that we are seeing elsewhere in the region; they may threaten to undermine it, bringing about a nuclear arms race in the middle east or the risk of conflict.

The events in the Arab spring and mounting concern over Iran’s nuclear programme do not detract from the urgent need to make progress on the middle east peace process. I repeat our calls for negotiations on a two-state solution without delay and without preconditions, based on the timetable set out in the Quartet statement of 23 September. In our view, the parameters for a Palestinian state are those affirmed by the European Union as a whole: borders based on 1967 lines with equivalent land swaps; a just, fair and realistic solution for refugees; and agreement on Jerusalem as the future capital of both states.

Israel’s announcement last week that it would accelerate the construction of 2,000 settlement housing units was wrong and deeply counter-productive. That was the eighth announcement of settlement expansion in six months. We also condemn the decision to withhold tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, which was provocative and against Israel’s own interests, as it has direct implications for the Palestinian Authority’s ability to maintain effective security in the west bank. We call on Israel to revoke both those decisions. We are also concerned about the situation in Gaza and the constant risk of an escalation in violence. We believe the Israeli restrictions harm ordinary Palestinians, inhibit economic development, and strengthen rather than weaken Hamas. It will be both right and directly in Israel’s interest if it permits increased imports of building materials for UN projects and for the private sector in Gaza; allows legitimate exports to traditional markets in the west bank and Israel; and reduces restrictions on civilian movement between Gaza and the west bank.

On Friday, the admissions committee of the Security Council will conclude its consideration of the Palestinian application and produce a report summarising Council members’ views on whether Palestine meets the criteria for membership under the United Nations charter. As that could now soon be followed by a vote in the UN Security Council, it is appropriate to inform the House of the Government’s intentions.

The United Kingdom judges that the Palestinian Authority largely fulfils criteria for UN membership, including statehood, as far as the reality of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories allows, but its ability to function effectively as a state would be impeded by that situation. A negotiated end to the occupation is the best way to allow Palestinian aspirations to be met in reality and on the ground. We will not vote against the application because of the progress the Palestinian leadership have made towards meeting the criteria, but nor can we vote for it while our primary objective remains a return to negotiations through the Quartet process and the success of those negotiations.

For those reasons, in common with France and in consultation with our European partners, the United Kingdom will abstain on any vote on full Palestinian membership of the UN. We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help to bring about peace. The United Kingdom will continue to be one of the principal supporters of Palestinian state-building efforts, assisting the Palestinians to tackle poverty, build institutions and boost their economy. If their application to the UN Security Council fails, the Palestinian leadership have indicated that they may take the issue to a vote at the UN General Assembly, where different voting procedures and different considerations apply. We and the other countries of the European Union will continue to emphasise that any proposition put to the General Assembly must make a return to negotiations more likely.

For Israel, the only means of averting unilateral applications to the UN is a return to negotiations. A demonstration of political will and leadership is needed from both sides to break the current impasse. This includes the Israeli Government being prepared to make a more decisive offer than any they have been willing to make in the past.

The middle east peace process cannot be viewed in isolation from the rest of the region. In each country there is a huge opportunity for peaceful change, the advancement of human rights and economic development. The decisions they take now will affect their future security and prosperity, and we urge all of them to take the path of reform.

That was my message on my visit to north Africa last month, when I also travelled to Morocco and Algeria, and to Mauritania, making the first visit by any British Minister to that country. I welcome the fact that during my visit the Government of Mauritania announced that they will reopen an embassy in London. In all these countries I discussed political reform and declared our willingness to support projects through our Arab partnership initiative. That is already providing £6.6 million this year to projects that promote freedom of speech and political participation, support the rule of law, tackle corruption and help small business and entrepreneurs. Across the region we are working with the BBC and the British Council to develop new programmes to strengthen public debate, drawing on our country’s long tradition and expertise in these areas.

Tunisia has set an example of what can be achieved peacefully. Its elections on 23 October were the first free elections of the Arab spring and the first in that country’s history. This is a remarkable achievement. We look to those who have been elected to the constituent assembly to work together in forming a Government.

In Egypt, we welcome the decision of the high election commission to allow international NGOs to monitor its parliamentary elections on 28 November. On his visit to Egypt last month, the Deputy Prime Minister emphasised the need for a clear road map to democracy, and announced UK Arab partnership support to assist the democratic process and economic reform.

In Bahrain, we await the report of the independent commission of inquiry into the unrest in February and March, which has been deferred until 23 November. This report is a major opportunity and important test for the Bahraini Government to show they take their human rights obligations seriously and will adhere to international standards. We stand ready to help them implement recommendations from the report. In the meantime, we continue to encourage the authorities to address allegations of human rights abuses that are reportedly still occurring and remain of great concern.

In Yemen, finally, the political impasse is deepening insecurity and poverty. On 21 October, we helped to secure Security Council resolution 2014, which was adopted unanimously and signals clearly to President Saleh that the only way to meet the aspirations of the Yemeni people is to begin a transition on the basis of the Gulf Co-operation Council’s initiative. We will continue to work with others to support a peaceful and orderly transition in Yemen.

Each country in the region has to find its own way, and we will work with Governments who strive to bring about greater political and economic freedom in their countries. The Government will work with international partners to maintain peace and security, promote democratic development and uphold the interests of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, although the fact that it has been made today, reducing Opposition time, is a matter of regret.

This is the first statement we have had on foreign and Commonwealth affairs since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector ended, after seven months of operations at sea and in the air. I am sure the whole House wants to pay tribute to the armed forces of all nations involved, and in particular to commend the professionalism of the British service personnel who have been involved in protecting the Libyan civilian population.

While we are dealing with matters related to armed conflicts in north Africa and elsewhere, could the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether reports today are true that the British Government intend to support efforts to change the position agreed in the 2008 convention on cluster munitions and permit the use of certain cluster munitions bombs produced after 1980? He will, I hope, take this opportunity of his response to agree with me that the achievement of the previous Government, taking a lead in reaching international agreement to prohibit the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions, was significant and should not now be reneged upon. I also welcome the steps, set out by the Foreign Secretary, that are being taken by the Government in Libya—and indeed Tunisia and Egypt—to translate popular uprising into stable democratic government.

In his last statement, the Foreign Secretary promised

“to increase the pressure on the regime”—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 496.]

in Syria. Last Wednesday, he issued a statement saying that he commends

“the Arab League’s efforts in pursuing this initiative to stop the violence in Syria”.

Of course the diplomatic involvement of Syria’s neighbours in ending the violence would be welcome, but in his statement today he acknowledged that the situation in Syria has in fact deteriorated, with the UN stating that the death toll now exceeds 3,500. Sixty people have been reported killed since the Arab League began its involvement, many in the city of Homs. Can the Foreign Secretary therefore give his assessment of the realistic prospects for the Arab League’s process, given this continuing pattern of violence? Can he also set out more specifically in his response what steps the British Government are urging on the Arab League when it meets this weekend?

Let me turn to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report, which we are given to understand indicates that Iran has carried out tests

“relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device”.

The Foreign Secretary should be assured that he therefore has our full support in making clear to the Iranians their obligations under international law, our shared opposition to Iran developing a nuclear weapon—a step that would not only threaten Israel and Iran’s immediate neighbours but the security of the whole region—and the need for Iran, as he put it, to change direction.

In the last statement to the House, the Foreign Secretary said,

“We are working on further sanctions”—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 502.]

on Iran. Given that the case for further diplomatic measures will be strengthened by this latest IAEA report, can he now tell the House what progress has been made in developing those further sanctions? Can he also give his assessment of the implications of this news for proliferation across the region, given that none of us wants to see a nuclear arms race in such a volatile part of the world? Finally, can he give his assessment of what prospects there are for further action at the United Nations level, given the stated positions of both China and Russia?

I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has given a more substantive update on the situation in Bahrain in today’s statement than was given in his previous statement. In our last exchange on the issue, the Foreign Secretary accepted that

“national dialogue has not yet been successful in bringing everybody together in Bahrain.”

Given his statement today that human rights abuses are still being reported, can the Foreign Secretary give his assessment of whether the prospects for national dialogue have improved?

In his last statement the Foreign Secretary also said:

“We attach great importance to the publication”

of the report of the independent commission of inquiry into human rights abuses. At that time he said he expected the report on 30 October, but that has now been pushed back to 23 November. Can he explain why? Will he commit today to setting out the British Government’s reaction in a written or oral statement to the House when that report is finally published?

Let me turn to the issue of Israel and Palestine. The need for progress on this conflict has, if anything, become more urgent in light of the recent changes in the region, which have only increased the Palestinians’ desire for statehood and have shaken some of the core assumptions that have underpinned Israel’s security in past decades. What is the Foreign Office’s best assessment of the likely impact of the announcement by the Israeli Government of 2,000 more settlement units and threats to withhold Palestinian tax revenues, which the Foreign Secretary condemned, on the Quartet’s attempts to facilitate a return to talks? Will he also join me in condemning the latest rocket attacks on the people of Israel?

The House is aware that, as the Opposition, we set out our position on the issue of Palestinian recognition on 20 September, and that in a letter to the Foreign Secretary on that date I said that the case made by the Palestinians for recognition at the United Nations as a state was strong. I said that the British Government should be willing to support the recognition of Palestinian statehood as part of continuing steps to achieve a comprehensive two-state solution, but I also said at the time that there remains a heavy onus on the British Government and other members of the international community to work to ensure that any change in the level of Palestinian recognition is followed by meaningful negotiations between the parties.

The Foreign Secretary rightly stated that the goal of all diplomatic efforts should be a two-state solution brought about by negotiations. On 13 October, he told the House:

“Our words are all directed towards trying to bring about the resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. How we act in the Security Council or on any motion that may come before the UN General Assembly will be determined by how we can bring about a resumption of negotiations.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 497-502.]

Yet today the Foreign Secretary has been unable to explain his decision in reference to negotiations that have resumed. That is because no meaningful negotiations are taking place. After his statement today, many Members in all parts of the House will still be struggling to see how a decision to abstain is likely to help bring about resumed negotiations.

Given the absence of any meaningful negotiations between the parties at present, a point which I am sure the Foreign Secretary will not dispute, can he tell the House how his position of having no position is likely to advance the peace process? This decision announced by the Government today represents a further acceptance of and accommodation to a wider pattern of failure—failure to achieve meaningful negotiations, failure to meet the aspirations of the Palestinians and, indeed, the Israeli people, and continued failure by the international community to find a way through the present impasse.

Given the Government’s decision announced today, what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the likely consequences of the Palestinians’ bid for statehood being rejected in the Security Council? How will the Government cast their vote when the issue comes before the United Nations General Assembly? The House deserves a clear answer on this question. I hope in his response the Foreign Secretary will be able to offer a clearer sense of what he now regards as the realistic path forward to a negotiated two-state solution, which I sense the whole House is united in continuing to support.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Gentleman. He asked about a report on a different subject, cluster munitions, but I will deal with it quickly. There is an Adjournment debate about this tomorrow, I think, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will deal with and set out the position in more detail. We certainly do not want to weaken what has been agreed in the past, so it is important not to believe everything written in newspapers on this subject, as on so many subjects.

On the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked about Syria, yes, I think it is absolutely right for us to commend the efforts of the Arab League, without being able to have a huge amount of optimism about whether they will be successful. It is very good that the Arab League is engaged with the issue in a united way, and that pressure from within the region among the Arab states is being applied to the Assad regime. As in so many of these situations, that is far more likely to succeed than any pressure from western nations.

It is right to commend that pressure, but as I indicated in describing the events of the past week, matters have not improved since the putative deal with the Arab League was done, so it is important now for the Arab League to reinforce the pressure that it is applying to the Assad regime. There is a range of measures that the Arab League can take, from suspending Syria from the Arab League to much more concerted diplomatic pressure. It would be quite a major step for the Arab League to go beyond that, given its customary practices, but it is for the Arab League to consider. We will not try to lay down what it should do. We will continue to intensify our own pressure. We have already agreed in the EU sanctions on 56 individuals and 19 entities—importantly, as I say, on the Commercial Bank of Syria as well. That pressure will continue to increase on what is a completely deplorable and unacceptable situation in Syria.

On Iran, I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for much of what I said about Iran. He asked what the report meant for proliferation in the region. It is bad news about proliferation in the region. The principal problem with Iran’s nuclear programme is that it threatens to drive a coach and horses through the non-proliferation treaty. Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. It makes it much more likely that other states in the region will develop their own nuclear weapons programmes. Then the world’s most unstable region will be in possession of the world’s most destructive weapons. We have to take this situation with the greatest seriousness. Further action at the United Nations is difficult, given the positions of Russia and China, but I think it will be important for all the Security Council members to study the IAEA report and the forthcoming outcome of the board of governors meeting, and there will be a strong case for further discussions at the United Nations.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what further pressure we are considering. We have already introduced unprecedented UN and European Union sanctions on Iran. We are working to ensure their robust implementation to close loopholes and to discourage trade with Iran. We are in discussions about increasing this pressure, and we are also considering further unilateral measures, should Iran fail to comply with its responsibilities. Although I cannot go into precise detail now on the sanctions that we are considering, we are looking at additional measures against the Iranian financial sector and the oil and gas sector, and the designation of further entities and individuals involved with its nuclear programme.

On Bahrain, an assessment of whether the national dialogue will lead to success is, again, difficult to give. Some honest efforts have been made to reinforce and carry out that dialogue, but they have certainly not yet produced general agreement in Bahrain on the way forward. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to explain why the report of the commission of inquiry had been delayed. That is a matter for the Bahraini Government rather than for me to explain, but I hope it signals—[Interruption.] Well, one can take it as good news or bad news. I hope it signals that this is going to be a serious report when it is published on 23 November. Certainly, the composition of the inquiry suggests that its members will want to produce a very serious report. That is why we should attach great importance to it. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, when the report is published, we would give the Government’s reaction in a statement of whatever kind, including a written statement. We will certainly do that.

On the middle east peace process, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether actions are helping, including the settlement announcements. Clearly, they are not helping; nor are the rocket attacks on Israel, which he rightly pointed to. He pointed out that his position—and it is our position as well—is that any change in the status of Palestine at the United Nations must be accompanied by or followed by a return to meaningful negotiations. I think that there is common ground on that across the House, but it is how to act on that basis that gives rise to differences on how we should vote at the UN Security Council.

We consider there to be no substitute for negotiations under the Quartet process, which we obviously want to get going. We believe that it is vital for Israel and the Palestinians to embrace the opportunity to take the Quartet process forward, but we also believe that voting for full Palestinian membership of the United Nations at this moment would reduce the incentives for the Palestinians and the willingness of Israelis to find a negotiated solution. I fully respect a different point of view, but that is our judgment on the matter and that of most, if not all, European Governments in and outside the European Union.

A further factor in our decision is the fact that there has been a serious European effort to bring about a resumption of negotiations by supporting the Quartet. That effort will continue. I do not expect any of our European partners to vote at the Security Council for Palestinian membership. A serious divergence in our voting behaviour at the Security Council at this point would disrupt and complicate European efforts to revive and support negotiations.

Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Events in the middle east continue to have far-reaching implications for the peace and stability of the region and for our own security. Libya continues its profound transformation after more than 40 years of dictatorial rule. On 20 September the national transitional council took up Libya’s seat at the United Nations General Assembly. Order has been restored in Benghazi and Tripoli, as I saw when I visited with the Prime Minister last month, and the NTC has consolidated its hold on the vast majority of Libya’s territory.

The remaining Gaddafi supporters are concentrated in Bani Walid and Sirte, where there has been intense fighting. The NTC has said that it aims to declare the liberation of Libya once Sirte has fallen, to move swiftly to form a transitional Government within 30 days and to hold elections for a constitutional assembly within the following eight months. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary visited Tripoli and Misrata last weekend. His talks with Libyan leaders confirmed their clear understanding of the need for quick formation of a new, inclusive Government.

Colonel Gaddafi’s location remains unknown, but scores of his closest supporters and family members, including his wife and daughter, have fled over Libya’s borders. Interpol has issued red notices for him, his son Saif al-Islam and his former director of military intelligence, all of whom have been indicted by the International Criminal Court. No state should harbour any of those fugitives from justice.

Last week NATO agreed that the positive trend in Libya is irreversible, but that not all Libya’s population is yet safe from attack. We will continue operations to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973 for as long as is necessary, at the request of the NTC and with the authority of Security Council resolution 2009, which was unanimously agreed on 16 September and established a new UN support mission in Libya.

British planes and attack helicopters have flown some 3,000 sorties across Libya and have damaged or destroyed some 1,000 former regime targets. Their precision targeting has minimised civilian casualties and saved countless lives, helping Libyans to gain their freedom. I pay tribute to them and all our partners involved in the NATO operation.

We are supporting the NTC’s own plans for political transition in Libya, through the friends of Libya group and the allocation of up to £20.6 million in UK funding for stabilisation, including for the rule of law, police, elections, essential basic services and the removal of mines and unexploded ordnance.

Libya’s economic growth will be an important component of its future stability, and on 26 September the Minister for Trade and Investment, my noble Friend Lord Green, visited Tripoli with a trade delegation, followed by a conference in London for representatives of British business.

By contrast with the progress being made in Libya, appalling violence and repression continues in Syria. Some 2,900 people, including 187 children, have died at the hands of the regime and its armed forces in just seven months. Along with the United States and our European partners, we tabled a draft UN Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian regime’s use of force, calling for an end to violence and threatening sanctions, while ruling out military force. Nine of the 15 members of the UN Security Council voted in favour of that resolution, but Russia and China, regrettably, chose to block it. It is a mistake on their part to side with a brutal regime, rather than with the people of Syria.

We will go on working with other nations to intensify the pressure on the regime. On 24 September the seventh round of EU sanctions came into force. They now target a total of 56 regime figures and 18 Syrian entities, and include an arms embargo and a ban on the purchase, import or transport from Syria of crude oil and petroleum products. As the EU previously imported over 90% of Syria’s crude oil, and in 2010 oil revenues accounted for a quarter of all Syrian state revenues, the import ban will have a significant impact. We expect the EU to adopt further sanctions soon against a key regime entity. Turkey has also announced plans to adopt unilateral measures against Syria. We will look to work with it and other like-minded partners to increase the pressure on the regime, as well as continuing discussions at the UN.

Too much blood has been spilled for that regime to recover its credibility. President Assad should step aside now and allow others to take forward reform. We urge the Syrian opposition to develop a peaceful vision for the future of their country, and welcome the formation of the new Syrian national council. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) met senior members of the council in Paris, and I met Syrian activists in London at the end of last month. The Syrian ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office this morning and told that any harassment or intimidation of Syrians in our country is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

There is no one model for democratic development in the middle east. We must work with the grain of each society, while standing up for universal human rights, recognising that the pace of change will vary in each country and offering our assistance where we can and where it is requested.

On 23 October, the Tunisian people will vote freely for the first time in their history. The Tunisian authorities have worked hard to prepare for elections. Tough economic challenges lie ahead for the new Government, but they have achieved a great deal in the space of 10 months.

In Egypt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has announced parliamentary elections beginning on 28 November, followed by a referendum on a new constitution and presidential elections. I spoke to the Egyptian Foreign Minister last night to express our deep concern about recent unrest in Cairo, and to argue for the need for steps to avoid further tensions and uphold the right to freedom of religion and worship in Egypt.

Members on both sides of the House will have concerns about events in Bahrain, including the use of military-led courts to try civilian defendants, including doctors and nurses. We welcome the announcement by the Bahraini Attorney-General that the cases of the medical staff will now be retried in a civil court on 23 October, and the expected report of the independent commission of inquiry on 30 October. We attach great importance to the publication of that report. It is a major opportunity for Bahrain to demonstrate that it will adhere to international standards, meet its human rights commitments and take action when abuses are identified.

In Yemen, President Saleh’s return without a clear plan to transfer power has worsened the severe economic, humanitarian and security crisis. We continue to work for and to urge an orderly transition of power, along with our Gulf partners and other allies. We are now seeking discussion of the situation at the UN Security Council.

The House will know that the United States has announced the disruption of a major conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on American soil in Washington. There are indications that that deplorable plot was directed by elements of the Iranian regime, with the involvement of senior members of the Islamic revolutionary guard corp’s Quds force. This would appear to constitute a major escalation in Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism outside its borders. We are in close touch with the US authorities and will work to agree an international response, along with the US, the rest of the EU and Saudi Arabia.

Separately, we welcome the King of Saudi Arabia’s recent announcement that women in Saudi Arabia will soon have the right to vote and run in municipal elections and to become members of the Shura Council, the King’s advisory body. That will be a significant step forward for the people of Saudi Arabia, and I welcome the King’s commitment to listening to the aspirations of the Saudi people.

I also welcome the progress that has been made in Morocco, where elections will be held on 24 November, and in Jordan, where we look forward to the implementation of amendments to the Jordanian constitution, strengthening the rights of citizens and the parliamentary process. Positive, peaceful change is taking place in much of the Arab world.

The case for progress on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become more urgent as the pace of change in the region has quickened. We support a settlement with borders based on 1967 lines, with equivalent land swaps, a just settlement for refugees and Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states.

On 23 September at the UN General Assembly, President Abbas lodged an application with the UN Security Council for full Palestinian membership of the United Nations. This application is now being considered by the UN membership committee. Also on 23 September, the Quartet adopted a statement that provides a clear timetable for a conclusion to negotiations. We have called on both parties to return to talks on that basis. I welcome Baroness Ashton’s statement on 9 October that the parties will be invited to meet in the coming days. Success in this will require bold, decisive leadership from both sides, as well as painful compromises. Palestinians should focus on returning to talks, rather than setting too many preconditions.

For the Israelis, time is slipping away for them to act in their own strategic interest. The expansion of settlements must end; they are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. That is why we voted in favour of the UN Security Council resolution on this subject in February and why we continue to condemn the announcement of new settlements. The Israeli Government need to take bolder steps than Israeli leaders have been prepared to do in recent years.

Separately, I welcome the agreement between Israel and Hamas to release the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, as part of a prisoner exchange. Holding him in captivity was utterly unjustified from the beginning, yet it has gone on for five long years, and the whole House will warmly welcome his return home.

The Government are determined to do all we can to support peaceful economic and political reform across the middle east and north Africa through our Arab partnership initiative, the work of our embassies and our role in the European Union and the G8.

In Tunisia, we are supporting voter education in rural areas. We are helping the government of Morocco to improve transparency in Government Departments. In Algeria, we are supporting a loans scheme for young entrepreneurs. In Egypt, we are helping to establish an academy to provide new female candidates and their election campaigners with relevant skills.

We helped to secure a revised European neighbourhood policy, which makes an ambitious offer of much deeper economic and trade integration and more explicitly conditional financial assistance, and the G8 has pledged $38 billion for the region. In both cases, we want to see policy turned into action, so that the whole of Europe and the G8 can act as magnets for change. The Arab spring has brought conflict and uncertainty, but it undoubtedly has the potential to bring about the greatest single advance in human freedom since the end of the cold war.

We are also determined to learn the wider lessons of these events. On 16 March I announced a review of policy and practice relating to the export of equipment that might be used for internal repression, in particular crowd-control equipment. I have this morning laid a further written ministerial statement before the House outlining a package of proposals resulting from that review, which concluded that measures should be taken to improve aspects of UK export policy. We will introduce a new mechanism to allow Ministers to respond more rapidly and decisively to the outbreak of conflict or to unpredicted events like the Arab spring, by suspending licensing. Our proposals also include steps to strengthen decision making when we provide security and justice assistance overseas. That announcement does not preclude additional measures or further strengthening of the system.

On all these issues, the Government will continue to defend human rights and support political and economic freedom and to work closely with our allies in the interests of peace and stability for this vital region.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and for advance sight of it this morning. On the Government review of policy and practice relating to the export of equipment that might be used for internal repression, we will study the package carefully. I welcome the statement, given continuing events in the middle east, and note that the last time the House had the opportunity to discuss such a statement was on 29 June.

Let me turn first to Libya, where our forces are still engaged in upholding United Nations Security Council resolutions. Much progress has been made in Libya since the House last met, thanks in no small measure to the continuing and characteristic professionalism of our armed forces in enforcing those resolutions. Fighting continues around Sirte, as the Foreign Secretary says, and I would be grateful if he gave further details of the situation on the ground. I note the presence of the Defence Secretary, who has said that the fall of Sirte is “getting very close”; perhaps the Foreign Secretary is willing to give a time scale, given continuing events in the city.

Will the Foreign Secretary give his reaction to concerns expressed yesterday by the Libyan oil and finance Minister, Mr Ali Tarhouni, and the deputy chief of the national transitional council’s executive committee, that weapons are still entering the country in a way that could threaten its future stability?

On Syria, the right hon. Gentleman rightly condemned President Assad and urged him again to step aside. We welcome the fact that Europe has moved to broaden sanctions on the regime, including on its oil sales; Labour Members have argued for that for some months. However, it is six months since Ministers stated that Syria was

“at a fork in the road.”

In light of the continuing bloodshed and repression, will the Foreign Secretary give some detail of the character of the Turkish unilateral actions now under consideration, and will he give us more information on the expected extension of European Union sanctions?

I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed by the brevity of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on Bahrain, given his previous recognition of the need for more fundamental reform there and, of course, its historically strong links with the United Kingdom. Indeed, in March the Foreign Secretary told the House that

“the King of Bahrain pledged himself…to further such reforms.”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1137.]

However, in recent months, there has been little evidence of real and substantive reform, and further evidence of deeply troubling events, such as the sentencing of the doctors whom the Foreign Secretary spoke about. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that continuing worries about Bahrain will be met with ongoing diplomatic efforts from the British Government, and will he set out what steps he intends to take? In April, the Foreign Secretary expressed his frustration that

“In Yemen, attempts at agreeing a political transition have repeatedly stalled or failed.”—[Official Report, 4 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 753.]

Six months on, can he tell us what further steps he is planning to take to help prevent further dangerous deterioration in the situation there?

Recent events in Cairo will also cause concern to many who remain friends to the new Egypt. I join the Foreign Secretary in condemning unequivocally the killing of 24 Coptic Christians after recent demonstrations. That is just the latest, though clearly one of the most serious, causes of concern. The deaths in Cairo have reportedly prompted the resignation of Egypt’s Finance Minister, Hazem el-Beblawi; in addition, Egyptian output fell by 4.2% on the previous year in the first quarter of this year alone. Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern about what will happen to the Egyptian economy, and that access to European markets in particular needs to be accelerated?

Eight months after the revolution, the armed forces continue to run the country through their supreme council. The emergency laws originally introduced by President Mubarak have been maintained, and there is at least some talk of the presidential election being slipped to 2015. Will the Foreign Secretary share with the House the Government’s assessment of the situation, and his judgment as to when presidential elections will take place and when power will effectively be transferred from military to civilian authority?

Let me associate myself entirely with the Foreign Secretary’s remarks about the prospect of Gilad Shalit’s long-overdue release, and the recognition that a negotiated two-state solution remains the route towards peace and stability in the region. There is much common ground on the issue across the House. However, I note the carefully chosen words that the Foreign Secretary used in relation to the recognition of Palestinian statehood in the United Nations. Will he confirm today that it has never been the case that that recognition can only follow the conclusion of the negotiations? Will he offer the House a little more insight on where those discussions in the Security Council have reached?

Let me turn to Iran. I concur with the concerns expressed by the Foreign Secretary, but will he give us the British Government’s view of where that leaves the E3 plus 3 process? In June, he promised:

“Until Iran negotiates seriously, international pressure against it will only increase.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 35.]

Will he set out what measures he expects to use to increase that pressure? We know that being able to see protests elsewhere in the middle east and north Africa, online or on satellite television, was a key driver of the changes that we witnessed this year, so what action is the Government taking to support the BBC Persian service, which has been subject to repeated attempts to jam and otherwise block its important information?

These remain days of great possibility and great peril for the middle east and north Africa. I hope that the Government continue to keep the House updated in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mr Hague]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those questions; I think that they reflect the large measure of agreement across the House on many of the issues. I shall run through his questions in the order in which he asked them.

The right hon. Gentleman was quite right, of course, to pay an additional tribute to our armed forces and the work that they have done on Libya. He asked what the situation is in Sirte. There remain two small, steadily shrinking areas where the pro-Gaddafi forces fight on. I do not think that it is possible to give a time scale—[Interruption.]—well, a more precise time scale than anyone has given so far, which is what the shadow Foreign Secretary was asking for. We have always resisted putting precise time scales on things. However, clearly great advances have been made by the free Libya forces in recent weeks and days, and there are now two small areas left. That shows that the pro-Gaddafi forces that remain are in a very difficult position.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to ask about weapons coming into the country. Indeed, that is part of the issue of the stabilisation of Libya. The national transitional council has been consistently underestimated in the past six months, at every stage. International opinion, many media commentators and sometimes those in this House thought that the council did not have the capacity or expertise to get a grip on its country. It has shown at every stage that it does, and I think that it will, in addition, have that ability when it comes to controlling the supply of weapons. We are giving it assistance in tracking down some of the weapons of the Gaddafi regime that have gone missing, and that assistance will continue.

Syria has long since passed the fork in the road. The right hon. Gentleman is right that back in March, I said that it was at a fork in the road—I said it for a while—but the Assad regime is now far past the fork, and sadly it took the wrong fork. That is why we said in August, along with the United States and our European partners, that Assad should go, and that the regime should come to an end. It is for the Turks to announce, of course, the details of their proposals. For reasons that will become obvious, I cannot give details of the next measure that the European Union will take; action against a major Syrian entity will be announced pretty soon.

The right hon. Gentleman was worried about the brevity of my remarks on Bahrain, but that was simply to comply with Mr Speaker’s strictures. One could talk for hours on any of the subjects that we are discussing, and if the House sets aside the time, I will be delighted to do so. Over the past few months, Bahrain has taken some actions that are welcome, and some that are very unwelcome; it has gone in different directions—sometimes at the same time, speaking frankly. It was welcome that it announced the commission of inquiry into abuses, and indeed put internationally respected people on it. I also welcome its decision, after the international outcry about the trial of the doctors and nurses, about the retrial. It is welcome that it has attempted, since the time that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about, a national dialogue in Bahrain, yet of course there are many valid, legitimate criticisms as well, and allegations of human rights abuses. That national dialogue has not yet been successful in bringing everybody together in Bahrain.

The diplomatic message to Bahrain is communicated in many different ways, including by me, in my conversations with the Foreign Minister of Bahrain. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), is in regular discussion with the Bahraini authorities. The National Security Adviser, Sir Peter Ricketts, recently visited Bahrain and made clear our views on all these matters, so I want to put the emphasis for the next 17 days, up to the publication of the commission of inquiry’s report, on the great importance that I think all of us in the House attach to that, because the credibility of the report and the readiness to act on it will be an important test of how Bahrain will approach the coming weeks and months.

In Yemen, we are taking many steps to support an orderly transition of power. I pay tribute again to the staff in our embassy in Yemen, who work in what is perhaps the most dangerous situation that any of our diplomats face around the world. I visited them there in February. They do a great job in supporting the Gulf Co-operation Council’s efforts to promote dialogue and trying to persuade all sides to sign up to the orderly transition of power. We continue to work closely with the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, on this. As I have said, we are about to discuss this in the United Nations Security Council and are considering whether a resolution there would add to the international pressure on the President to sign up to an orderly transition of power.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the Egyptian economy. I expressed those concerns to the Egyptian Foreign Minister when I talked with him last night and, in particular, asked him and the Egyptian Government to take steps to give investors in Egypt greater confidence about both security and in relation to recent court decisions. That is very important to British businesses, which are the largest investors in Egypt, particularly in the oil and gas sectors. He undertook to do that, and UK Ministers will of course strongly reiterate these concerns on forthcoming visits.

The right hon. Gentleman is also right to raise concerns about the timetable for presidential elections slipping. When I asked the Egyptian Foreign Minister about that yesterday, he said that he believed that the elections would take place by the summer of next year. According to other commentators, that is an optimistic timetable. Without interfering in the sovereign affairs of Egypt, I think that we can continue to express our view that the sooner such elections take place, the better. Egypt of course needs clear and strong civilian leadership in the form of a democratically elected President, and that cannot come about too soon.

The right hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement on welcoming the release of Gilad Shalit. The Security Council is considering the membership application of the Palestinians through its normal procedures. When and how to take that forward will be partly up to the Security Council and partly up to its members. There is currently no specific proposition before the Security Council on this. He said that I had expressed carefully chosen words on the issue. They are very carefully chosen, because words really matter on this issue. It is a delicate and difficult subject. Our words are all directed towards trying to bring about the resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. How we act in the Security Council or on any motion that may come before the UN General Assembly will be determined by how we can bring about a resumption of negotiations. All 27 EU countries have withheld a verdict on motions at the UN, partly because there is currently no specific motion to vote on, but also to maximise our leverage over both Israelis and Palestinians to return to talks. That is the basis of our position and I think that it would be wrong to move away from it at the moment.

On Iran, we announced considerable additional European sanctions at the end of May. We are working on further sanctions, but I am not in a position to announce those today. The attempted action revealed by the United States this week makes a strong case for additional measures, which we are now discussing with our partners. The right hon. Gentleman rightly identified the importance of the BBC Persian service, through which we should communicate at every opportunity. Attempts are made to block that, but we of course support the service politically, diplomatically and technically in any way we can.

Africa and the Middle East

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, I will make a statement on north Africa and the middle east, on which I have undertaken to keep the House regularly updated.

Our country has a compelling interest in seeing the nations of the wider middle east move towards more open societies, political systems and economies. We cannot dictate change in the region, but we can use our membership of the UN Security Council, NATO and the EU, and our close links in the region, to encourage reform, and we can stand up against repression and violence, which we have seen taken to extremes in Libya and Syria.

Britain continues to play its full part in implementing the no-fly zone over Libya, and the measures called for in UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 to protect civilians. Our actions continue to save lives. NATO strikes have prevented Benghazi from falling, reduced pressure on Misrata, and enabled the delivery of humanitarian aid and the evacuation of thousands of wounded people.

More than 13,000 sorties have been carried out since 31 March, including nearly 5,000 strike sorties. In June alone, 131 military facilities and 343 tanks and vehicles have been hit. I hope the House will join me, as ever, in paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces who are carrying out that vital work. We can and we will sustain those operations for as long as necessary, until the regime ceases attacks on its own people and complies with the UN resolutions. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has said, we have the military capability, political resolve and legal authority to see through what we have started.

Support for the regime within Libya is being eroded as we and our allies intensify the military, political and diplomatic pressure upon it. The EU sanctions on ports in western Libya, which I announced in my last statement, have now been put into effect. I welcome the decision of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, and his intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi. That confirms that there can be no future for the Gaddafi regime leading Libya, and that any of its adherents who do not want to be associated with human rights violations should abandon it, as many former ambassadors, Ministers, military officials and members Gaddafi’s inner circle already have.

In addition to that pressure, we are working with more than 40 states and organisations to support a political transition in Libya through the Libya contact group. That includes the UN, the Arab League and the African Union. At its third meeting in Abu Dhabi on 9 June, Egypt and South Africa were also represented for the first time as observers. The contact group’s work to support an inclusive political transition, as set out in the transitional national council’s road map on Libya, is gathering pace.

UN special envoy al-Khatib is leading the political efforts. I met him last week in Luxembourg, and we hope that in the coming weeks he will engage intensively with all parties. In Abu Dhabi, the contact group agreed to facilitate the start of an inclusive national dialogue in Libya. The TNC has begun to make contacts across Libya in support of that process. In the last week, it received the first $100 million of international funding through the temporary financing mechanism set up by the contact group for vital fuel and salaries. I will attend the next meeting of the contact group in Istanbul next month, which we hope will focus on ensuring that the international community is ready to support the Libyan people in building a peaceful and stable future in post-Gaddafi Libya. It is vital that plans for post-conflict Libya are prepared and, as far as possible, agreed in advance.

An international stabilisation response team from the UK, the US, Turkey, Italy and Denmark visited Libya between 20 May and 9 June to assess stabilisation needs. It has identified a range of areas where Libya will need immediate support, including political settlement, security and justice, basic services, economy and infrastructure. However, this process should, of course, be owned by the Libyan people. The UN has confirmed the importance of early preparations for the post-conflict position and the leading role of the UN. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence are co-ordinating closely to identify where the UK, in addition to our international partners, can provide key expertise in support of their efforts.

Members on both sides of the House will also be concerned about the grave situation in Syria, which shows no sign of abating. Protests across the country are still being met by unacceptable violence from the regime, and the reports of Syrian troop movements near the Turkish border are of serious concern. President Assad’s speech on 20 June was disappointing in its failure to take any concrete action to stop the violence and change the situation on the ground. It did contain some proposals for reform, including plans for a national dialogue, constitutional reform and new laws on political parties, elections and the media. To be significant, such changes would need to be implemented quickly and fully. The regime needs to show that these pledges are more than tactical calculations designed to buy time and appease the demonstrators, which so far it has not done.

The holding of a public meeting of opposition figures in Damascus on 27 June—the first of its kind in a decade—was a positive step, and I hope that further such meetings can be held. However, without an end to the violence, the release of political prisoners, including those detained in recent demonstrations, and a guarantee of the right to peaceful protest, there can be no credible attempt at national dialogue and the opposition meeting will have been a wasted opportunity. Last week, the EU imposed further sanctions against 11 individuals and entities associated with violent repression against civilians. The draft UN Security Council resolution that Britain has circulated remains on the table. We believe that the Security Council should speak out against repression in Syria, and that President Assad must reform or step aside.

I spoke yesterday to the Turkish Foreign Minister, who briefed me on Turkey’s efforts to persuade President Assad to change course and implement reform. It is important that we use all available channels to convey this message to President Assad. This week, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) travelled in a private capacity to Syria where he met President Assad. He told him that international pressure on Syria will only increase if it continues on its current path. Given that only a change of course in Syria will bring about an end to the violence, we should welcome contacts that reinforce the need for urgent change. Yesterday, my officials also made clear to the Syrian ambassador our strong concern about allegations that a diplomat at the Syrian embassy has been intimidating Syrians in Britain. Any such activity would amount to a clear breach of acceptable behaviour, and if such claims were substantiated, we would respond swiftly and appropriately.

Elsewhere, there have been positive developments in Jordan, where King Abdullah has pledged to promote political and economic reform. He has set out his vision to develop Jordan’s democracy and engage widely with Jordanian society. We stand ready to use the UK’s bilateral Arab partnership fund to support this process where we can. We also welcome the announcement by the King of Morocco of a new draft constitution on 17 June, which includes a strengthened role for the Prime Minister and Parliament, and greater constitutional protection for human rights and gender equality. There will be a referendum on 1 July and we look forward to parliamentary elections scheduled for October.

I welcome the support expressed in the House on previous occasions for UK leadership on the reform of the European neighbourhood policy and the ambitious international response to the region that we saw at the G8 summit in Deauville. Multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the European Investment Bank, will offer to provide more than $20 billion in support of reform efforts over the next two years. It is crucial that the international response to the Arab spring remains ambitious, generous and bold and includes the real prospect of closer association with the EU, including market access, in response to political and economic reform.

I can also report progress on the Arab partnership since the Prime Minister’s announcement of its expansion to £110 million over four years. In Tunisia, we are supporting steps to improve voter education, freedom of expression and balanced reporting in the run-up to October’s important Constituent Assembly elections. Last week, Tunisia became the first north African state to ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court—a very welcome indication of its commitment to reform—and in Egypt we are working with those running the forthcoming parliamentary elections. We remain concerned, though, that parliamentary elections in September may be too soon to allow a wide range of political parties to mobilise fully.

In comparison with these more encouraging developments, I am deeply concerned by the situation in Bahrain. While every Government has the right and duty to maintain law and order, the suspension and investigation of political parties, the imprisonment of leading moderate politicians, the alleged mistreatment of detainees and the trial of members of the medical profession before tribunals containing a military judge were all damaging to Bahrain and were all steps in the wrong direction. I welcome the King’s announcement of a national dialogue from 1 July and the end of the state of national safety, but we look to Bahrain to match such announcements with concrete actions to address the legitimate aspirations of the Bahraini people and we look to leading figures on both sides in Bahrain to promote successful and peaceful dialogue.

Iran continues to connive in the suppression of legitimate protest in Syria and to suppress protests at home. I therefore welcome the European Council’s decision to sanction three senior commanders of the Islamic revolutionary guards corps. Iran has also been carrying out covert ballistic missile tests and rocket launches, including testing missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload in contravention of UN resolution 1929 and it has announced that it intends to triple its capacity to produce 20% enriched uranium. These are enrichment levels far greater than is needed for peaceful nuclear energy. We will maintain and continue to increase pressure on Iran to negotiate an agreement on its nuclear programme, building on the strengthening of sanctions I announced to the House earlier this month.

In Yemen, President Saleh’s departure has been followed by greater calm in Sana’a. However I remain concerned about greater instability in Yemen and the possibility of economic collapse and humanitarian crisis. The Government of Yemen must confront these challenges urgently. We encourage all parties, including the President, to engage in political dialogue regarding an orderly transition on the basis of the Gulf Co-operation Council initiative, which remains the most credible plan. We also continue to advise against all travel to Yemen and urge all British nationals to leave the country now, while commercial carriers are still flying.

South Sudan’s independence is now just over a week away, but it is set to take place against a backdrop of conflict and unresolved issues. We welcome the agreement reached on Abyei, which paves the way for a swift withdrawal of Sudanese armed forces from Abyei and for the deployment of Ethiopian peacekeeping troops under a UN mandate. The UN Security Council has moved swiftly to adopt a mandate for this new mission. This is just a first step and we call on the parties to implement their commitments.

The continued violence in southern Kordofan is also deeply troubling, with reports of indiscriminate aerial bombardment by the Sudanese armed forces and of individuals being targeted on the basis of their ethnicity or political affiliation. I call on all parties to agree an immediate cessation of hostilities and to allow immediate access to humanitarian agencies. I welcome the news that a framework agreement was signed last night and I hope that it will soon be followed by a ceasefire. We continue to urge north and south to use the good offices of former President Mbeki to resolve outstanding issues under the comprehensive peace agreement before 9 July. It is particularly important that they agree the sharing of oil revenue and citizenship issues, as well as their border. The African Union-led negotiations, which are funded by the United Kingdom, resume in Addis Ababa on 3 July, and I urge the parties to seize this opportunity to build long-term peace and stability in Sudan.

All these events in the region call for a redoubling of international efforts to support peace, stability and democracy. Nowhere is this need more pressing than in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no alternative to negotiations, recommenced as a matter of urgency, to address the fundamental issues at the heart of a two-state solution. We call on the parties to return to the negotiating table, for no other option will bring lasting peace. We will continue to defend human rights and support political and economic freedom throughout a region undergoing momentous change and experiencing a chain of crises, and we will continue to work closely with our allies in the interests of peace and stability for this region and across the world.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

May I begin by expressing my unequivocal condemnation of the attacks on the Inter-Continental hotel in Kabul, reports of which have reached the United Kingdom in recent hours? I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families and friends of the victims of this attack, which was clearly designed to take human life and undermine efforts, including those of British service personnel, to build a stable Afghanistan.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the situation in Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Morocco and Jordan, and, indeed, the broader tenor of his remarks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On the mission in Libya, we continue to support the work of our armed forces in upholding UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 to protect the Libyan people, and I am happy to join the Foreign Secretary in again paying tribute to the brave men and women of our armed forces.

Last week, under pressure from my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, the Government revealed that the cost of the mission in Libya had run to £260 million, in contrast to the tens of millions that the Chancellor had previously suggested. Given these escalating costs, can the Foreign Secretary restate the Government’s guarantee that no personnel, equipment or resources will be diverted from the Afghanistan campaign to support the Libyan campaign? Is he able to tell the House what efforts the Government are making to help to spread the financial cost among international partners so that it does not fall exclusively on those most involved in the military side of the campaign to increase pressure on the Gaddafi regime?

I note the Foreign Secretary’s confirmation that the temporary financing mechanism is now operating. Yesterday, however, there were troubling reports on the BBC that a medical crisis was looming in eastern Libya, with hospitals in Benghazi running short of supplies. The transitional national council says that this is a result of serious financial difficulties. Can the Foreign Secretary offer the House any assurances that the temporary financing mechanism will indeed allow resources to travel to where they are needed sufficiently quickly?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that for a number of weeks the Opposition and, indeed, many voices beyond the Opposition, have been raising the question of post-conflict planning, and I therefore listened with care to his statement. Of course, we all hope for a resolution to the conflict soon, and we hope for a post-Gaddafi Libya. As the Foreign Secretary said, this week the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for Gaddafi to be sent to The Hague to be tried for crimes against humanity. But if those wishes were granted tomorrow, it is still unclear, after the Foreign Secretary’s statement today, whether the transitional national council and the international community would be ready. By default, it appears, rather than by design, the Foreign Secretary has, in his own words to this House, ensured that

“Britain is in the lead in post-conflict planning.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 38.]

Yet in written answers to my questions he subsequently admitted that not a single official in the Foreign Office or in the Ministry of Defence’s offices in Whitehall was working full time on post-conflict planning in Libya.

Of course we welcome the work that the Department for International Development is doing to plan on humanitarian issues, but the security and political aspects of post-conflict planning are just as important and are, in fact, a prerequisite for any effective humanitarian response. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister specifically about this subject, but received little reassurance. We are now more than 100 days into this conflict, and it is 24 days since the Foreign Secretary said that post-conflict planning was at an “embryonic” stage. Can he tell us, where is the plan? Who is in charge? Is he actually confident that the necessary work is being done?

The events of the past six months in north Africa and the middle east have been a test of every Foreign Ministry around the world. On Libya, while we were critical of the Government’s early errors in getting UK personnel out and making contact with the transitional national council, we have supported the United Nations mission. While some of the attention has now left Egypt, the most populous country going through a process of change, we cannot ignore the fact that the new Egypt’s success or failure will probably be the single most fundamental test of the Arab spring’s long-term impact. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the Egyptian Finance Ministry now states:

“Tourism collapsed temporarily, banks and the stock market were closed, capital flows reversed rapidly, and the manufacturing, construction, and internal trade suffered…the Egyptian economy will likely contract by 1.4 percent in the second half of the current fiscal year”.

The G8 meeting at Deauville, to which the Foreign Secretary referred, made great play of a promise of $20 billion in support for the transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. Today, the Foreign Secretary was able to say only that those resources would be offered by the multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the European Investment Bank. Will he therefore take this opportunity to be more specific about how much of that $20 billion is new money, and about what proportion is in either grants or loans?

Many hon. Members were disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman’s refusal at an earlier exchange to condemn attempts to re-establish the grand prix in Bahrain while violent suppression was still being threatened in that country, but the decision to allow a member of the Government, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), to undertake a private diplomatic mission to Syria is a source not so much of disappointment as of incredulity.

The job of Government Whips is to enforce collective decision making, not flagrantly disregard it, yet the best explanation that the Foreign Secretary was able to offer today for that curious mission is that the hon. Gentleman travelled to Syria “in a private capacity”. Really? Why did the Foreign Secretary allow a member of the Government, but not a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, in the midst of allegations of intimidation by the Syrian embassy on the streets of Britain and evidence of indiscriminate murder on the streets of Syria, to travel to meet President Assad last weekend? It really does prompt the question: is this Government’s foreign policy being run out of the Foreign Office or out of the Whips Office?

Just after the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made the case for expanded sanctions on Syria—sanctions which were achieved at the European Council and which the Opposition had called for and welcome—the hon. Member for Braintree was entering into his own three-hour dialogue with President Assad. These are dangerous and delicate days in Syria which demand from the British Government discipline, grip and coherence in policy and in the communication of that policy. This is surely no time for do-it-yourself diplomacy.

To summarise, where we can we will support this Government’s approach to the middle east and north Africa, but the House needs clearer answers on post-conflict planning, a clearer strategy for the whole region and, frankly, clarity on who speaks for the Government in their communications with Syria.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning events in Kabul, which I did not refer to earlier given the focus on the middle east and north Africa. Clearly, however, we are very concerned that British nationals were caught up in the attack on the Inter-Continental hotel, and our consular services have been very busy in Kabul looking after them. I spoke on the telephone this morning to one of the two British nationals involved, and I am pleased to say that they are safe and sound and will return speedily to this country.

The attack is part of a pattern of Taliban activity in Afghanistan—against the momentum that the international security assistance force has gathered—to try to make highly publicised attacks on civilian targets, as well as sometimes on military targets, in Afghanistan. We should not be fooled by that. I saw for myself in Afghanistan last week the progress that we are making on the ground, particularly in Helmand where British troops are so heavily employed, and I am sure that the House will be unified in its concern at that attack, as the right hon. Gentleman reflected.

I am grateful also for the right hon. Gentleman’s continued support, and for the continued widespread support throughout the House, for our implementation of resolutions 1970 and 1973 and for the work of our armed forces in implementing them. He asked about the cost of the campaign, and, in referring yesterday to £260 million, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary explained the estimated and expected cost over six months, so not the cost to date.

Those costs and our military activities do not impinge on our work in Afghanistan, as I again saw for myself last week. Clearly, the greater costs of the military campaign fall on those nations that undertake the military activity, and we might all wish that NATO had different financing arrangements, but that is how it works. Nevertheless, many other nations contribute to the cost in other ways, including in humanitarian support, and they will be able to contribute to future stabilisation.

The important thing to bear in mind, and on which I hope there is agreement throughout the House, is that, if we had not acted in Libya but allowed the humanitarian catastrophe that would have resulted from Gaddafi overrunning by force the rest of Libya, and destabilising the neighbouring countries of Egypt and Tunisia in the process, to happen, the costs would have been incalculable to European countries in uncontrolled migration and in new breeding grounds for terrorism and extremism. The cost of the campaign in Libya has to be set against those considerations, and that is a very important point.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, if Gaddafi went tomorrow, we would be any further on, and I think that we would be a lot further on than we were a few weeks ago, when I said quite rightly that planning was at an embryonic stage. The stabilisation unit has prepared its report, but it would be quite wrong for the international community to say, “That is what we are going to try to impose on Libya.”

This is not an invasion of Libya; this is about Libyans being able to take responsibility for their own future. That is why I urged the Turkish Foreign Minister in my discussions with him yesterday to ensure that such stabilisation work is discussed at the contact group in Istanbul, and that the national transitional council is able to take it into its planning for the future. It is not something that anybody can sit in an office anywhere in the western world and just decide; it is valuable work that feeds into the planning process for post-conflict stabilisation in Libya, in which we hope that Libyans will take the lead, and of course that the United Nations will take a leading role.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the involvement of the Foreign Office, but things have changed dramatically in the past year in terms of the work between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the one hand and the Department for International Development on the other. On entering office, I was appalled by how poor relations had been between DFID and the FCO, for which he must bear part of the responsibility, having been a Minister in both Departments.

The Secretary of State for International Development and I have taught our Departments that they are each other’s best friend, and we needed to after the activities of the previous Government, so the right hon. Gentleman can be sure that at all levels, whether in Benghazi, in Whitehall, or in the National Security Council where all the work is put together, vast numbers—dozens—of Foreign Office officials are connected with it. His questions on that do not live up to the subject, and they are certainly not commensurate with his rather poor record on those matters.

On Egypt and financing, the situation depends on the demand and readiness of such countries to access the funds. It is mainly financing and loans that are on offer, but they are on offer advantageously, and take-up will depend on the response of countries throughout north Africa to the opportunity. Egypt has not taken up the offer, but it may do so under a future Government, and we hope that it will.

On Syria, I think that the only incredulity is about the nature of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, because there is no doubt about international unity and support on the matter. Foreign policy is not conducted in a bunker, where we do not communicate with people with whom we disagree. We have diplomatic relations with Syria; I have communicated with the Syrian Foreign Minister; we communicate with the Syrian ambassador all the time; we send messages through the Turkish Foreign Minister and through Arab Foreign Ministers; and we send messages also through people whom President Assad has met frequently before.

That is why it is entirely right and proper for my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree to have visited President Assad and communicated messages in accordance with the views of the international community. It seems to be only the right hon. Gentleman who thinks that we should not communicate such messages through every available channel.

With the exception of a couple of areas that I thought were rather petty, trivial and incredulous, I welcome as usual the generous cross-party spirit of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions and our continued unity on the importance of these subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The Government have taken full note of the debate in the House two or three weeks ago calling for a review of that decision, and we are accordingly looking at the subject, along with the World Service, which is also considering its allocation of priorities. I think that by early July we will be able to come back to the House.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Owing to the popular protests in north Africa and the middle east, the Opposition have been arguing for months that the European Union’s External Action Service budget should be rebalanced in favour of post-Ben Ali Tunisia, post-Mubarak Egypt and, we hope, a post-Gaddafi Libya. Following the Deauville announcement, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke, will he tell us whether he now feels that the EU contribution is adequate to the challenge and risks, and what proportion of that money is new money?

[Mr Hague]

The crucial thing is the money available for development and economic partnership, rather than the budgeting of the External Action Service. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the proposal published on 25 May by the Commission set out a plan that included €750 million of additional resource in order for the EU to work with the economies of north Africa. That is subject to further discussion at the European Council next week, but that is the Commission plan.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me ask about one country in particular—obviously, Libya. On 13 April, the Foreign Secretary told us that

“the United Nations should take forward lead planning for early recovery and peace-building in Libya.”

Last Tuesday, he told the House that rather than the European Union or the United Nations,

“Britain is in the lead in post-conflict planning.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 38.]

Given his further worrying statement last week that planning is only at “an embryonic stage”, can he tell us who precisely is responsible for post-conflict planning? Is it the United Kingdom, the United Nations or the European Union? Furthermore, when will they come forward with something more than an embryonic plan?

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman is conflating several different subjects. What I said needed fleshing out in more detail was the immediate planning of the national transitional council in Benghazi for the day after Gaddafi—if we can express it like that. It is doing a lot of that work, and we are looking forward to it communicating that. That is taking place, and we are in the lead in terms of looking in detail at the stabilisation response. Our stabilisation response team has been in Benghazi and is now writing its report, but we have been working with Italy and Turkey on that. So the UN will have that responsibility for co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and for the future, but Britain has taken the lead in putting people on the ground and doing the thinking. None of those things is inconsistent with the others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Our special representative is intimately involved in those negotiations. A few days ago, I spoke to former President Mbeki, who is leading the conduct of the negotiations. In recent days, I have also spoken to President Kiir on the south Sudanese side and the Foreign Minister in Khartoum for the north, so we are highly active in trying to push for a solution, and that includes working with Ethiopia. It is not possible to say when the negotiations will resume, but real progress needs to be shown before 9 July, which is, of course, the date for the independence of South Sudan.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The whole House will be aware of reports that more than 5,000 Syrian refugees have registered with officials on the Syria-Turkey border and that many more are poised to flee Syria. I welcome the statement the Foreign Secretary has just made, informing the House that this evening he will be speaking to the newly elected Turkish Government about the situation in Syria. How hard will he, as a friend of Turkey and its EU membership aspiration, be pressing for that country to step up its regional leadership role, particularly in relation to Syria?

[Mr Hague]

I will, of course, be doing that, and the Prime Minister has already spoken to the Prime Minister of Turkey since the Turkish election results on Sunday night. Turkey plays a strong leading regional role, and, despite its own election campaign, has made many efforts in recent weeks to persuade the Assad regime to adopt a different course. I am sure it will want to redouble its efforts now, given the worsening situation on its border, and I will strongly encourage it to do so, as well as take its advice about the wider international handling of Syria.

Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on north Africa and the middle east. On Saturday I visited Benghazi with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. We went to show our support for the people of Libya and their legitimate representatives, the national transitional council. Our overriding impression was of a great sense of optimism among ordinary Libyans, who are hopeful that Gaddafi will leave and deeply grateful for what the United Kingdom has done. I pay tribute to the brave men and women of our armed forces and to our diplomats and aid workers in Benghazi for their courageous work.

Benghazi is functioning well under the circumstances, with police visible on the streets, many shops and restaurants open and food staples in good supply. We also noted a dramatic expansion of civil society groups, which rightly see themselves as one of the key building blocks of a free Libya.

The UK’s approach is as I have set out many times before. We continue to take robust action to implement UN Security Council resolution 1973, which authorises military action to put in place a no-fly zone to prevent air attacks on the Libyan people and all necessary measures to stop attacks on civilians while ruling out an occupation force. The case for this action remains utterly compelling.

Operating strictly within the limits of the UN resolution, we are steadily intensifying the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Gaddafi regime. We have increased the tempo of air strikes against regime forces, which are currently taking place at a rate of approximately 50 strike missions per day and include the targeting of military command and control sites in Tripoli, regime tanks, artillery, rocket launchers and armoured fighting vehicles. Nearly 10,000 sorties have been carried out since 31 March, including more than 3,700 strike sorties, on top of operations to disrupt regime military activity and arms shipments at sea. On 1 June the North Atlantic Council agreed unanimously to extend NATO’s operations for a further 90 days from 27 June.

It is right that we ensure that our military operations are as effective as possible and that we adapt our tactics as the regime forces change theirs. Last week Britain deployed Apache helicopters to operations in Libya, alongside French helicopters, which is enabling the precise and potent targeting of regime forces.

The Gaddafi regime is isolated and on the defensive. Last week a number of senior military officers abandoned it, including five generals. The head of the National Oil Corporation also recently fled Libya. On 17 May, Arabsat joined European satellite companies in suspending Libyan state television broadcasts, a significant blow to Gaddafi’s ability to carry out psychological warfare, and we press all satellite companies to take similar action.

British humanitarian support has already played a vital role in Libya. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has announced further assistance to protect 200,000 people in Misrata and elsewhere from land mines. We have deployed an international stabilisation response team to Benghazi, which is leading the international effort to plan detailed assistance for Libya when the conflict comes to an end, ensuring that clear plans are in place for the international community to support. Separately, we are providing additional communications equipment, uniforms and bullet-proof vests to help the national transitional council develop responsible security forces and to protect civilians.

In our meetings, we found the NTC focused on Libya’s future. It has published a road map for the transition to democracy, with an interim Government including some technocratic members of the regime and elections. We have advised the NTC to develop its proposed transition in more detail to ensure that comprehensive plans are in place.

Any political settlement in Libya requires an end to violence and Gaddafi’s departure. At the G8 summit in Deauville on 26 May, participants, including Russia, agreed that Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy and must go. On 11 May, at the Foreign Affairs Council, the EU agreed to intensify efforts to block the regime’s access to resources, funding, military hardware and mercenaries. Today the EU has added six regime-controlled port authorities in western Libya to the EU sanctions lists. This will help prevent the regime acquiring military resources and will support the protection of Libyan civilians.

The next meeting of the Libya contact group will take place on Thursday in the United Arab Emirates, where Britain will call for all this international pressure to be intensified and maintained. The House should be in no doubt that the efforts of Britain and our partners are saving lives and enforcing UN resolutions. Had we not acted, the bloodshed would have been far greater and the consequences for Libya’s neighbours and the entire region would have been extremely serious.

The Gaddafi regime is not the only Government seeking to suppress peaceful protest. Scores of people were killed in Syria over the weekend after demonstrations involving tens of thousands of people. Members on both sides of the House will have been horrified by the killing of many children and the death of 13-year-old Hamza al-Khateeb, who was allegedly tortured. The regime is using live fire against protestors and blocking UN efforts to get help to those in need. There have been reports overnight that a number of security force personnel have been killed in the town of Jisr al-Shughour, close to the Turkish border, and we call for restraint in response to this incident.

Since my previous statement, our efforts to agree EU sanctions against President Assad and other individuals responsible for the violence and repression in Syria have been successful. We are exploring with our European partners the potential for further sanctions if the violence continues.

Britain has circulated a draft UN Security Council resolution condemning the repression in Syria and calling for the Syrian Government to meet their people’s legitimate demands, to release all prisoners of conscience, to lift restrictions on the media and internet and to co-operate with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The House will appreciate that a resolution is not in our gift and needs the support of nine UN Security Council members and no vetoes. We are working to persuade other countries that the Security Council has a responsibility to speak out. President Assad is losing legitimacy and should reform or step aside.

We must show the same resolve and purpose in supporting change and democratic development elsewhere in the region, using, for example, the economic appeal of the EU to act as a magnet for positive change in the region. We welcome the review of the European neighbourhood policy, issued on 25 May. It includes many British proposals and follows weeks of intensive engagement by Ministers, including the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. It offers a new partnership based on progressively greater economic integration, including trade, and increased funding for the southern neighbourhood of €750 million. It links EU support with progress on political and economic reform, and it includes a civil society facility and a European endowment for democracy to help fund new political parties and small non-governmental organisations.

The G8 summit agreed the Deauville partnership, which will provide more than $20 billion in vital assistance to Tunisia and Egypt and to countries that commit to more open and democratic government, and in February I announced Britain’s new Arab partnership initiative to support civil society and democratic development in the region, with initial funding of £5 million. The Prime Minister announced at the G8 summit that we will increase that funding more than twentyfold, expanding it to £110 million over four years.

The fund will provide support for lasting political and economic reform through the building blocks of democracy: independent institutions, political pluralism, free media and economic opportunity. It includes up to £40 million to work with Parliaments, civil society, human rights groups and reforming Governments, and up to £70 million to support growth and tackle the fundamental problems that leave so many millions of young people throughout the region without a job. This is in our vital national interest as well as true to our values.

Tunisia has made significant progress towards a more democratic society, but there is a risk of political reform being destabilised by economic challenges. In Egypt there have been further demonstrations calling for faster political and economic reforms and a revised electoral timetable. We are concerned that planned parliamentary elections in September will be too early to allow political parties to organise their activity and to contest the elections. The Prime Minister and I have pressed the Egyptian authorities to ensure an open and plural election process.

The situation in Yemen is extremely uncertain following President Saleh’s departure to Saudi Arabia to receive medical treatment and his transfer of authority to the Vice-President. We urge the Vice-President to work closely with all sides to implement the Gulf Co-operation Council agreement and to begin political transition now. Yemen faces huge humanitarian and economic challenges, and the Yemeni Government need to dedicate all their efforts to confront the impending crisis, with international support.

Recent events have shown just how quickly the security situation in Yemen can deteriorate into ferocious and unpredictable fighting. It is of the utmost importance that all British nationals leave the country immediately by commercial means while it is still possible to do so, as we have advised them to do since 12 March. I warn again that it will be extremely unlikely that the British Government will be able to evacuate British nationals from Yemen.

We are also concerned about developments in Bahrain, particularly the arrest and trial of a large number of politicians, doctors and nurses and the allegations of torture. I raised our concern and the need for the Bahraini Government to meet all their human rights obligations when I saw the Crown Prince of Bahrain last month. I also emphasised the need for a long-term political solution that builds bridges between the different religious communities.

I welcome the lifting of the state of national safety on 1 June and the announcement by the King of Bahrain that a comprehensive and inclusive national dialogue will start on 1 July. Urgent dialogue on genuine political reform is the only way to address the legitimate concerns of the Bahraini people and to ensure long-term stability.

With a month to go before South Sudanese independence on 9 July, we have made strong representations about the violence in Abyei and southern Kordofan. I met the Sudanese Foreign Minister yesterday and urged a peaceful and durable solution for Abyei and agreement on outstanding areas of the comprehensive peace agreement. This is only more urgent following the very worrying reports received just this morning of renewed fighting in southern Kordofan. We are in touch with the UN mission in Sudan and monitoring these developments closely. I urge both sides to cease all hostilities immediately and to return to negotiations under the auspices of the African Union.

The Arab spring underlines the importance of a breakthrough on the middle east peace process. This long-standing conflict needs to be resolved, through negotiations, to give the Palestinian people the state that they need and deserve and the Israeli people long-term security and peace. The status quo is not sustainable, nor will these populations be immune from the effects of change and instability elsewhere. We strongly support President Obama’s recent statement that negotiations should be on the basis of 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps and proper security arrangements, and along with France and Germany we are pressing the parties to return to the table.

The new Palestinian Authority should be composed of independent figures on the basis that President Abbas set out on 4 May. As was the case with the outgoing authority, it should uphold the principle of non-violence, be committed to a negotiated two-state solution, and accept previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Hamas will remain a proscribed terrorist organisation unless and until it abandons violence and commits to a two-state solution, and we call again for the immediate release of Gilad Shalit. The UK will judge a future Palestinian Government by their actions and their readiness to work for peace. We are also concerned by this weekend’s violence in the Golan heights, resulting in many deaths, and we continue to urge restraint and call for the avoidance of the lethal use of force.

There must also be no let-up in our efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation in the middle east. Iran is combining brutal suppression of Opposition leaders at home with the provision of equipment and technical advice to help the Syrian regime to crush protests in Syria. This is unacceptable, and compounds our concern about Iran’s behaviour and its intentions over its nuclear programme. We support peaceful pressure on Iran to persuade it to negotiate, backed by the offer by the UK, the US, Russia, China, France and Germany to reach an agreement through talks. That is why the UK has recently helped to extend Iran sanctions in the EU, with over 100 new designations, while keeping the door open to further negotiations. Until Iran negotiates seriously, international pressure against it will only increase.

In all these countries, Britain’s approach in the coming months will be consistent and determined. We will support greater economic and political freedom while anticipating and addressing threats to our own security, and we will work with our allies to protect our nation’s interests while standing up for the highest values of our society.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it.

Let me begin my remarks with Libya. The mission to enforce Security Council resolution 1973 continues to have the support of the Opposition, but, as has been the case from the start, we will continue carefully to scrutinise the Government’s policy towards Libya. The brave and professional work of our armed forces in Libya has already helped to avert a slaughter in Benghazi and continues to provide vital support to the Libyan people, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that they continue to have the support of every Member of this House.

It has been clear from the outset that this conflict was always going to be easier to start than to finish. I therefore note all that the Foreign Secretary has said about post-conflict planning and, in particular, the work of the transitional national council, which is now producing a road map towards a more democratic future post-Gaddafi. Could he give the House a sense of the time scale by which further documentation might be available and what assessment he has made of the TNC’s capability to meet the challenges set out in this plan? Can I take it from his words this afternoon that in addition to our significant military commitments, the United Kingdom, in the form of the international stabilisation response team, is now also in the lead in developing the international community’s post-conflict planning?

On the Apaches, I think it is a matter of record that the French Defence Minister, Gérard Longuet, announced the British deployment before it was confirmed to this House. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is a matter of regret when French Ministers seem better informed about the deployment of British military personnel than the British Parliament?

I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about the increased pressure on the regime, but given the continuing limited capacity of the opposition forces to make broader strategic gains within Libya, by what means does he think the pressure can and will be increased in the weeks ahead?

Let me turn to events in Syria. I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation of the actions of the Assad regime thus far, and with what President Obama said recently:

“The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition.”

Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the regime’s efforts to shut down internet and mobile networks in parts of Syria? What work, if any, is under way in the United Kingdom to support people in countries such as Syria, whose freedom of expression is being restricted in that way?

Given the welcome work that is under way at the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary provide the House with an assessment of the prospects for securing support among the P5 members for a resolution on Syria? What impact does he judge the action in Libya has had on those prospects? Will he tell the House whether consideration is being given to referring Syria’s leaders to the International Criminal Court? Does he agree that the European Union can further strengthen such pressure? The EU can and should be looking at further sanctions on the regime, irrespective of what is or is not agreed at the Security Council. What discussions have the Government held with the Arab League on Syria, given its regrettable silence to date on that issue?

The situation in Bahrain continues to be deeply concerning. I reiterate our belief that the legitimate demands of protesters should be met with reform and not repression. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore give the House more details on the points that he and the Prime Minister made to the Crown Prince of Bahrain at the end of his recent visit to London? Did they raise the issue of military courts continuing to dispense summary justice? Did they raise the cases of the hundreds of protesters who have been jailed and the 90 or so who have been killed or simply disappeared? If they did raise those questions, what answers did they receive? What answers did they receive on the sharpening polarisation between communities within Bahrain?

In that context, what discussions have taken place between the Government and the governing body of Formula 1, the FIA, about its recent decision to reinstate the Bahrain grand prix in October? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that now is not the time to decide on that event, especially given the need for restraint, reform and reconciliation to be the focus in Bahrain in the months ahead?

When I visited Tunisia recently, a number of senior figures in the transitional Government and the fledgling political parties felt that the European Union had not come up with an assistance package to match the scale of the task on which they have embarked. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore update the House on what steps Britain is taking to ensure that more comprehensive offers than those that have been outlined are made to Tunisia and Egypt to help them on the path to democracy and to assist in their economic development?

I concur with the Foreign Secretary’s concern that September is too early to ensure that all political parties in Egypt have sufficient time to organise their activities and contest the elections. Following the work of my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for International Development to highlight this issue, how confident is the Foreign Secretary that the place of women in Egyptian society will be advanced and not set back by the constitutional settlement that is under construction?

Given our vital interest in the emergence of broader based democratic, prosperous countries across the middle east, how does the Foreign Secretary respond to the report by the Institute of International Finance, which predicts that Egypt’s economy will contract by 2.5%? Inflation is now above 12% and unemployment is up this year. According to Reuters, the country’s foreign exchange reserves fell by as much as a third in the first three months of the year. Newspaper estimates suggest that $30 billion have left Egypt since the start of the revolution. Given that the Deauville partnership of which he spoke applies not to one country but to the whole region, and given the scale of the capital flight, does he really feel that the World Bank’s package of $1 billion in each of the next two years and the International Monetary Fund’s loan of $3 billion are adequate? Can he really assure the House that he is confident that the international community’s response is appropriate to the opportunity and the risk of the present moment in the middle east?

There have been significant developments in relation to Israel and Palestine over the last few weeks, to which the Foreign Secretary alluded. I welcome the US President’s decision to reaffirm his country’s long-standing support for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders and mutually agreed land swaps. Last week’s clashes on the Israel border and the Golan heights, in which a number of protestors were killed or injured, were deeply concerning. Israel of course has a right to protect its borders, but can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what the Foreign Office is doing to ensure that Governments on both sides of those borders do everything they can to avoid provocations and escalations that make it harder to find peace? After the President’s speech in the United States and his speech to parliamentarians here in Westminster Hall, can the Foreign Secretary update us on any further discussions that he has had with Secretary of State Clinton on how, in practical terms, the United States and the UK will push for progress on the issue in the coming months? In addition—

[Mr Alexander]

I am indeed.

In addition, given the widespread discussion that the Palestinians plan to argue for statehood at the United Nations later this year, can the Foreign Secretary give his assessment of, first, where European Union allies are on that issue and, secondly, when the UK Government intend to come to a final view on the matter?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that wide range of questions. There are many subjects within the topic of the middle east and north Africa. I am grateful to him, of course, for joining me in paying tribute to the work of our armed forces, diplomats and aid workers, and for reaffirming what we said together in the House on 21 March—that we needed to avert slaughter in Benghazi. The action that we took did so, and that has been the foundation of the unity of this House on the conflict in Libya. We continue to be grateful for that.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale for the national transitional council producing more detail. I hope that it will do so at the contact group meeting in Abu Dhabi this week, and that it will take every further opportunity to publicise a more detailed programme for the process of transition in Libya. What it has already produced is absolutely sound, and we can support it, but it needs the added credibility of detail to be ready for Gaddafi’s departure.

The right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that the work done by the stabilisation response team, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I visited in Benghazi on Saturday, means that Britain is in the lead in post-conflict planning. We met Italian and Turkish experts who are also working with the team there, but we are certainly playing a leading role.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the reference by a French Minister to the deployment of our helicopters. As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary would tell him, the decision had not been taken in the United Kingdom at that time, although it was clearly assumed in other capitals. That has been known to happen before on other subjects, and I have no doubt it will happen again.

The increasing pressure on the regime comes in all the ways that I set out in my statement. It is military, economic and diplomatic, and it is having its effect. There is no doubt that the regime has lost the initiative both in the military campaign and on the political scene in Libya in recent weeks, as a result of what we have been doing.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about Syria and internet use, this has been another unacceptable aspect of the Syrian Government’s behaviour in closing down freedom of expression however they can. We will always do what we can to protect people’s freedom of expression, but of course we are not universally able to do so in every county of the world. In the P5 on the Security Council, Russia and China have strong reservations about a UN Security Council resolution on Syria. Russia in particular has expressed those reservations and some hostility to a resolution. We continue to work on the matter at the Security Council.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about a possible reference to the International Criminal Court, but he will be aware that in the case of a country that is not a party to the ICC, as with Syria, such a reference would require a UN Security Council resolution. As we are not able at the moment to pass a resolution on the terms that I described, we are clearly also unable to pass a resolution on a reference to the ICC. The European Union is considering additional sanctions, as he called for, and I discussed the position with the Arab League when I was in Cairo a few weeks ago. However, Arab nations have more divided loyalties than they had in the case of Libya, so there is not the same degree of Arab League unity. We have to face up to that fact.

The Prime Minister and I raised with the Crown Prince of Bahrain all the subjects that the shadow Foreign Secretary asked about. For his part, the Crown Prince is very keen for a national dialogue to be resumed and to mobilise moderate voices in Bahrain on both sides of what is, unfortunately, a very sharp sectarian divide. Formula 1 must take responsibility for its decisions, but if such an event is to take place, it should be a focus for improvements in Bahrain, and provide an incentive for all in that country to work together on a national dialogue. However, Formula 1 must make its own decisions.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about several vital matters on Egypt and was quite right to draw attention to the very serious economic situation. In fact, the main conclusion that I drew from visiting Egypt a few weeks ago is that the economic challenge is, if anything, even bigger than the political challenge. Although the measures announced at the G8 and by the EU might have to be revised and expanded over time, they are an ambitious start. It is important that EU nation states follow up with real determination what the Commission has said. The risk of the policy that the EU has announced not being followed through is that nation states will say, “Well, market access for products from north Africa is not so easy,” and will not follow through on the commitments. We must be a strong voice for following that up, for implementing the support for civil society, human rights and the diversity of politics in those countries, and for helping the creation of liberal and secular parties. Part and parcel of that is the great importance of the strong participation of women in society and politics in Egypt and other north African countries, to which the shadow Foreign Secretary drew attention.

On the middle east peace process, of course we are active in urging all sides to avoid provocations. We are in constant touch with France, Germany and the US in encouraging both sides back into negotiations on the back of President Obama’s speech. In my view, the strength of our case would be added to by a statement by the Quartet to follow the US statement. We have asked the US in addition to support that.

Future Diplomatic Network

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Britain’s future diplomatic network.

Our embassies and high commissions are the essential infrastructure of our country’s influence overseas and of our economic recovery. They provide an early warning system for threats to our security and to wider peace, and assist British nationals in times of crisis. They support our economy and help British businesses to access markets abroad. They promote our values of democracy and political freedom across the world, and help to craft vital international agreements from nuclear proliferation to climate change. We could not do without them for a single day.

I promised in our first week in office as the coalition Government that there would be no strategic shrinkage of Britain’s diplomatic influence overseas under this Government, and that instead we would strengthen Britain’s diplomatic network. Today I want to set out how we will achieve this while saving money overall.

The spending review settlement for the Foreign Office requires a 10% real-terms reduction in the budget. That is, of course, on top of years of unplanned cuts after the last Government stripped the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget, more than half of which is spent in foreign currencies, of its protection against exchange rate fluctuations in 2007, just before the sharp fall of sterling. In the last two years before the general election, the Foreign Office experienced a 14% real-terms reduction in its budget, resulting in the sudden loss of personnel and training in many embassies. The Foreign Affairs Committee has done much to sound a warning about these matters, and I have been unable to find any other major Foreign Ministry in the world that raises and reduces its diplomatic activity on the basis of movements in exchange rates. I promised to put an end to that ludicrous situation, and the protection is now being restored under a new foreign currency mechanism agreed with the Treasury. That means that the Foreign Office can once again plan properly for the future.

Fortified by that ability to plan, we will find £100 million per year of administrative savings by the end of the Parliament, on a carefully planned basis. We will save over £30 million by simplifying procedures, removing bureaucracy and ensuring that administrative work overseas is done by locally recruited staff or in regional centres. We will save over £34 million a year from our annual estates and security costs, for instance by moving to a single site in London. We will reduce our annual staff costs by £30 million a year by 2014 by reducing to a minimum the number of junior staff posted overseas from London, by removing or reorganising their positions or recruiting locally. We will do so in consultation with staff to mitigate the impact on individuals and their careers. Those savings are not easy but they are essential. They will allow us to live within the necessary financial constraints and to provide the diplomatic network we need for the future.

We will now reverse the previous Government’s policy of closing embassies and reducing our diplomatic presence in key parts of the world, as a result of which 45 UK posts were closed after 1997, including six in Africa, seven in Latin America and eight in Asia, and the overall number of UK posts in the world fell by more than 30.

We will embark on a substantial reinvigoration of the diplomatic network to make it ready for the 21st century, to expand our connections with the emerging powers of the world, and to signal that where Britain was retreating, it is now advancing. The case for a strengthened network is utterly compelling. The only way to increase our national prosperity and secure growth for our economy is through trade, and our embassies play a vital role in supporting British business. The emerging powers are expanding their diplomatic networks. Turkey is opening many new posts and Brazil already has more posts in more countries in Africa than Britain has. Given that political influence will follow economic trends in the world and increasingly shift to the countries of the south and east over the long term, we need to plan ahead and create the right network for the future.

Although we are working closely with the new European External Action Service and ensuring that talented British candidates enter it, there is not and will never be any substitute for a strong British diplomatic service that advances the interests of the United Kingdom. We can never rely on anyone else to do that.

We will therefore significantly increase our presence in India and China, the world’s two emerging superpowers. We will strengthen our front-line staff in China by up to 50 officials and in India by 30, and will work to transform Britain’s relationship with their fastest growing cities and regions. We will also expand substantially our diplomatic strength in Brazil, Turkey, Mexico and Indonesia. We will add diplomatic staff in the following countries and places: Thailand, Burma, South Korea, North Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Angola, Botswana, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Peru, Pakistan, Vietnam and the Philippines.

We will maintain the strength of our delegations to multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations in New York and Geneva, NATO, and the European Union in Brussels, all of whom have done an outstanding job in recent months. We will maintain our active and substantial embassy in Washington and our network of consulates general across the United States, which remains our indispensable ally in defence, security, foreign policy and commerce.

We have a strong network in the middle east and north Africa, on which the demands have been so great in recent months. Although there is no need to open new posts there, we have frequently and substantially reinforced our diplomats there in recent months and have sent a special mission to Benghazi. Over the coming months, we will review the need for additional deployments.

This expansion does come at a price. In Europe, there have already been significant savings in our diplomatic network. I am determined not to hollow out our embassies there, but we will need to find further savings in recognition of the fact that only three of the world’s 30 richest cities in total gross domestic product terms are in Europe, and the fact that our embassies there still cost more than elsewhere. So although we will fully maintain our embassy network across Europe, we will also find additional resource for our expansion elsewhere in the world from the network of subordinate posts in Europe outside capital cities. We will withdraw diplomatic staff from some subordinate posts, while retaining UK Trade & Investment and consular staff in many cases. That will lead to there being fewer subordinate posts in European countries.

With those additional resources we will be able to open new British embassies, including in places where they had previously been closed. We will reopen the embassy in El Salvador, closed in 2003, as part of a major diplomatic advance in Latin America after years of retreat. We will open a new consulate general in Brazil at Recife, which will be one of approximately seven new consulates general that we will open in the emerging powers. We will open a new embassy in strategically important Kyrgyzstan, and another in July in the new nation of South Sudan.

I always doubted the last Government’s decision to close the embassy in Madagascar, to which I know many Members of all parties objected. I am delighted to say that we will reopen that embassy as soon as the local political situation is right. I will also consider upgrading our political office in Côte d’Ivoire to a full embassy. I have made provision within our budget to open a new embassy in Somalia when the security situation has improved sufficiently. It is vital for our security that we are present in the horn of Africa, so I have made that decision now so that we will be ready to open the new embassy as soon as possible.

In addition to those new embassies, I give the House a commitment today that whereas the previous Government shut 17 sovereign posts in their time in office, we intend to retain all 140 existing British embassies and high commissions throughout the life of this Parliament. Other savings will be found as we reduce, over time, our diplomatic footprint in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is very large relative to the rest of the network. As the nature of the UK military involvement in Afghanistan changes, we will redeploy staff elsewhere.

The strength of our embassies is a signal to the world of our engagement and our role in international peace and security. They are the platform for the strong bilateral relations that are increasingly vital in a networked world, and indispensable to success in multilateral diplomacy. Our decisions will mean that our reach when British companies need assistance or British nationals are in danger will go further and be stronger. That is why the maintenance, extension and strengthening of our global diplomatic network is a central objective of this Government and will be a priority for the use of Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds over the coming years.

Although I have increased programme funding in the FCO to £139 million this year, our financial constraints and the priority that I am placing on retaining and improving our diplomatic network for the future mean that it will have to fall in future years, although it will remain above £100 million. I am sure it is right to give priority to long-term relations and the reversal of Britain’s strategic shrinkage.

This development of our network should be seen alongside the diplomatic excellence initiative that I have instigated in the FCO, which began six months ago. That places a renewed emphasis on policy creativity, in-depth knowledge of other nations, geographic and linguistic expertise and the enhancement of traditional diplomatic skills in a manner suitable for the modern world. A combination of strict savings in administrative spending, reductions in our subordinate posts in Europe and the other savings that I have set out will allow us, for the first time in many years, to mount a diplomatic advance. For the first time in decades, our diplomatic reach will be extended, not reduced. That is the right use of public money, and it is the right course for Britain in this century.

This Government will work to build up Britain’s influence in the world, to forge stronger bilateral relations with emerging giants and some old allies that have been neglected for too long, and to seize opportunities for prosperity and advance democratic values. We will maintain and enhance the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a central Department of State leading an ambitious and distinctive British foreign policy, and we will expand and use Britain’s diplomatic network to the very full, in the interests of the United Kingdom and in support of the wider peace and security of the world.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. I first join him, of course, in paying tribute to the work of all Britain’s diplomats around the world. Their work often goes unrecognised here at home, but Britain’s prosperity and influence would be hugely diminished were it not for their considerable efforts.

The Government are right to assess where best to deploy the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s finite resources. In particular, I welcome the decision to expand Britain’s diplomatic presence in China. UK exports to China were worth £5.5 billion in 2007—by 2009, that had grown by more than 40% in cash terms—and 17,000 British nationals are permanently resident in China. Next week, I will visit Britain’s embassy in Beijing. I am conscious that it is playing a hugely valuable role in supporting the promotion of Britain’s values and interests in the world’s most populous country.

The FCO should not, of course, be exempt from the need to reduce the deficit, but in making cuts to a relatively small budget that has a global impact, there is a need for particular care and clarity. The Foreign Secretary spent a great deal of time in his statement criticising Foreign Office expenditure decisions under the previous Government. Will he therefore confirm that it was under his leadership of the FCO that it was fined £20 million by the Treasury for its attitude to

“getting money out of the door”

before the end of the financial year?

The Foreign Secretary placed a great deal of emphasis on trade in his statement, but will he set out in greater detail the position on the headcount and resourcing of UKTI in the years ahead?

The Foreign Secretary briefly mentioned cuts in programme expenditure from the current level of £139 million to a figure, he said, that would be retained above £100 million. Perhaps, in the spirit of candour, he will share a little more of his thinking on which programmes he is contemplating cutting to make the reduction of which he spoke. He has already announced real-terms reductions in programme spending on counter-terrorism, and a £2 million cash reduction in spending on counter-narcotics and rule-of-law programmes in Afghanistan. Will he therefore confirm that the decisions announced today will mean no reduction in the levels of staffing dedicated to counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics, either in Afghanistan or across the whole diplomatic network?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that as we draw down our forces from Afghanistan, greater resources will be freed up. However, given the repeated and urgent calls from both sides of the House for a diplomatic surge to match the military effort, will he set out precisely what will happen and when in relation to FCO staffing in Afghanistan for the remainder of this Parliament?

There is much to study in today’s announcement, and the Opposition will scrutinise in detail the specific changes in each country. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s re-announcement of his commitment to ensuring that there is no strategic shrinkage of Britain’s influence under this Government, but such shrinkage cannot be prevented through diplomats alone. Many commentators saw the Government’s initial plan—to step back from foreign affairs and ensure that a quiet period on the world stage took place, reinforcing a domestic austerity agenda—as a profound error. Perhaps for the pre-Tahrir square era, such a plan seemed appropriate, but the Government’s passivity and lack of ambition for a bilateral, mercantilist approach to foreign policy has been found badly wanting by recent events in north Africa.

Will the Foreign Secretary therefore provide the House with more detail on Britain’s staffing of those multilateral institutions of which he spoke so warmly? Ours is the one country that can operate simultaneously through the EU, the Security Council, NATO and the Commonwealth. Will he therefore clarify what will happen to staffing in each of those institutions?

Is the Foreign Secretary really telling the House that, after the seismic political changes that have swept north Africa and the middle east in recent months, with protests from Morocco in the west to Iran in the east, the review makes no fundamental changes to the diplomatic distribution of assets in the region? That is what the Opposition heard him say, but many will think that that is unsustainable. I suggest that he commits now to a more fundamental review of diplomatic coverage in the region in the months ahead.

The review must not be a means by which the Government once again choose bilateralism over multilateralism, and trade over wider influence, and thereby, however inadvertently, sleepwalk into strategic shrinkage.

[Mr Hague]

I welcome some of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, including his tribute to the diplomats who serve all Governments loyally and well, as, of course, they will continue to do in the future. I also welcome his welcome for the expansion of our presence in China; it is the largest of all these expansions of our diplomatic presence in the world. Relations with China have been built up and improved under successive Governments, and I welcome the fact that he is visiting it next week. This trend has been continued across parties.

I wish, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had felt able to welcome some of our changes to the previous Government’s policies, particularly the reopening of embassies they closed. The embassy in Côte d’Ivoire was closed not only under the previous Government, but while he was a Foreign Office Minister. Trade offices in Brazil were closed, which I hope Labour Members will now recognise was a short-sighted mistake given the expansion of the Brazilian economy, and posts were withdrawn from Latin America, which was a mistake he chose not to dwell on in his questions. Furthermore, consulates general were closed in Frankfurt, Stuttgart and elsewhere across Europe. Taken together, the closure of more than 30 posts under the previous Government was a fundamentally mistaken policy that we are now changing. The withdrawal of the overseas pricing mechanism, which led to so many unplanned and rather chaotic Foreign Office spending reductions, was also a mistake, and it is time that Opposition spokesmen acknowledged that and said, as I said when I was in opposition, that in the future there will be no changes to the Foreign Office budget according to exchange rate fluctuations.

All those things were missing from the right hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement. He asked about various other details this year. The Treasury has not fined the Foreign Office, which now has a much better relationship with the Treasury than it did under the previous Government. Last night my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary and I launched the new UK Trade & Investment strategy and the FCO charter for business. Like all parts of government, UKTI has to manage with expenditure reductions and will have to produce more for its budget, which, like that of the Foreign Office over time, will fall by 17%. However, it will be able to do more with its budget by running it well.

Our programme spending decisions this year have already been set out in detail, but obviously what happens in future years will depend on how the situation develops. I am simply sounding a cautionary note today that some of those programmes may have to be reduced. However, it is far too early to make decisions about that. Furthermore, reductions in Afghanistan are not immediate. I am merely foreshadowing changes, given that we have said that by 2015, our troops will not be engaged in combat operations, or in anything like the numbers they are now. It follows that there will be diplomatic changes as well.

The strength of our diplomatic presence in multilateral institutions will not be affected. As I said in my statement, our diplomatic team have done a great job. However, it is also time for the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that success in multilateral institutions often comes from strong bilateral relations, as well as a great diplomatic team in those multilateral institutions, which is one reason why we place such emphasis on bilateral relations with many of the leading world powers. In many cases, those relations need to be restored. I do not know where he got the idea that the Government planned to step back from foreign affairs and think the world peaceful, or that we planned to be passive. After all, I keep finding myself going to countries that no Foreign Secretary visited during the entire 13 years of the previous Government, whether they be rather troublesome spots such as Yemen or old allies such as Australia. The passivity was in the previous Administration, rather than the current one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

No, and there is no indication that that is leading to such a thing. In fact, I held discussions with the secretary-general of the Arab League, Mr Amr Moussa, in Cairo yesterday. Indeed, the restrictions in the resolution were the product of discussions between him and me on the day that the resolution was passed at the UN. He is supportive of how the resolution is being interpreted, and the Arab League continues to support our efforts. Arab nations will be strongly represented at the contact group meeting in Rome on Thursday, which I will attend. I hope I can reassure my right hon. and learned Friend on those points.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I have listened with care to the Foreign Secretary’s answers. Those on both sides of the House are on record as saying that Libya’s future would be better served with Gaddafi gone.

The Government have stated that the UN mandate allows for the targeting of command and control operations that threaten civilians, but for clarity, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he agrees that the resolution excludes the direct targeting of individuals, and will he publish an updated summary of the legal advice, so that the House can be fully informed on those matters?

[Mr Hague]

I do not think that it would be right to expand on what I have already said about targeting. Whether individuals are targeted depends, of course, on how they behave, and whether they are part of command and control centres, and on where they are at the time. I do not think it right to provide a running commentary on targeting, and nor is it militarily sensible to do so, and I therefore do not want to expand on my earlier answers.

Of course, the Government will consider requests made in the House in respect of the legal advice. We published very clearly a note on the legal advice at the time of the 21 March debate. However, again, I do not think that it would be right for Governments to start to publish legal advice on a regular basis every few days, but we will consider any requests that are made.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me see whether the Foreign Secretary can be a little more forthcoming on this question. I understand his earlier answer—he said that it was too early to give a definitive account of the work being undertaken by British military officers on the ground in Benghazi—but will he undertake to publish the terms of reference under which they are operating?

[Mr Hague]

They are operating on the basis that I set out in the House of Commons. Last week, I think, when the House resumed, I made a statement on these matters and set out their purposes in a few sentences. Those are their purposes; they have not gone with an entire book of terms of reference. They have gone as a military liaison and advisory team to give their expertise on the organisation of logistics, headquarters and so on, as set out last week. There is nothing further to expand upon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The House is aware that the Prime Minister will shortly give a statement on the death of Osama bin Laden, but I hope the Foreign Secretary will agree that the success of the Arab spring could yet be an even more significant blow to al-Qaeda. Given that, will he update us on the work being done to stop the repression of demonstrators in Syria? In particular, when will the European Union act, and will the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking to work to ensure that Syria does not take Libya’s vacated place on the UN Human Rights Council?

[Mr Hague]

I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, this is a moment for people across the middle east to reflect that in so many countries it has been possible to bring about peaceful and democratic change—that may yet happen in more countries—and that the violent philosophy of al-Qaeda that only violence and death can bring about change is bankrupt and should increasingly be vanquished across the middle east. That does, indeed, bring us to Syria. The UK is at the forefront of pressing for action by the European Union. At the end of last week, we secured agreement on an arms embargo and the revocation of the association agreement that had been put in place with Syria. We are now working with our European partners on targeted sanctions such as asset freezes and travel bans—I will be discussing those further with the French Foreign Minister this evening—and we are also highly active at the United Nations Security Council on this issue, although the right hon. Gentleman will understand that Syria is a difficult issue at the UN Security Council and that some of the members, including permanent members, require a good deal of convincing that the United Nations should be taking any action.

Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on recent developments in the middle east and north Africa.

Britain has continued to take a leading role in international efforts to protect civilians in Libya, and the case for action remains compelling: Gaddafi’s regime persists in attacking its own people, wilfully killing its own civilian population. Our strategy is to intensify the diplomatic, economic and military pressure on Gaddafi’s regime, and since the House last met we have made progress on all those fronts.

On the diplomatic front, I co-chaired the first meeting of the Libya contact group in Doha on 13 April. The 21 states and seven international organisations represented demonstrated clear unity, with participation from across the Arab world and the African Union in attendance. The group agreed that Gaddafi’s regime had lost all legitimacy, that the national transitional council should be offered further support, and that the UN special envoy should take forward an inclusive political process. I will attend the next contact group meeting in Rome on 5 May.

At the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Berlin on 14 and 15 April, I joined colleagues in showing our determination to increase the pace of military operations to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973. The 28 NATO member states and six Arab countries that attended, 16 of which out of the 34 are engaged in military action, agreed a common strategy. That is an important milestone in world affairs, a sign of a growing ability to work across traditional regional divisions and a demonstration of the breadth and unity in the international coalition in support of the Libyan people.

On the economic front, since my statement on 4 April further Libyan entities have been sanctioned, and the regime is now subject to some of the most comprehensive economic sanctions ever agreed by the United Nations.

On military matters, since NATO assumed full control over all military operations on 31 March, more than 3,500 sorties and 1,500 strike sorties have been conducted. This action has seriously degraded Gaddafi’s military assets and prevented widespread massacres planned by Gaddafi’s forces. Gaddafi’s forces remain unable to enter Benghazi, and it is highly likely that without these efforts Misrata would have fallen, with terrible consequences for that city’s brave inhabitants. Yesterday, Italy announced that its aircraft would take part in ground strikes, and the United States Government have contributed Predator unmanned aerial vehicles to the coalition forces. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is in Washington today to discuss the military situation.

Heavy fighting continues around the towns of Brega, Ajdabiya, Yefren and Misrata. The regime’s indiscriminate shelling of residential areas in Misrata shows that it continues to target the civilian population. Gaddafi has shown that he has no regard for civilian lives. The International Criminal Court prosecutor has said that there is evidence of a case against Gaddafi for crimes against humanity. We look forward to the prosecutor’s report to the UN on 4 May. By his actions, it is clear that Gaddafi has no intention of observing the conditions in Security Council resolution 1973 that I described to the House earlier this month. He has repeatedly ignored the ceasefires that he himself has announced. Our military action is defined by the UN Security Council resolutions. We are also clear that Gaddafi should go, and it is impossible to see a viable or peaceful way forward for Libya until he does so.

The Libya contact group’s statement made it clear that, in contrast to Gaddafi, we and our allies regard the national transitional council as a legitimate interlocutor representing the aspirations of the Libyan people. Our diplomatic mission in Benghazi is working with it. Our special envoy, Christopher Prentice, will shortly be succeeded by John Jenkins, currently Her Majesty’s ambassador in Baghdad.

Last week, I announced our decision to expand this mission with a small advisory team of British military officers. Their sole purpose is to support the NTC’s efforts better to protect civilians by advising on military organisational structures, communications and logistics. They are not involved in training or arming the opposition’s forces, nor are they executing or providing operational military advice. This is fully in line with the UN resolutions, and I reiterate to the House that we will remain wholly in accordance with the UN resolutions, retaining the moral, legal and international authority that flows from that. We have supplied vital, non-lethal equipment to assist the NTC in protecting civilian lives. So far, this consists of telecommunications equipment and body armour. We are considering with our international partners further requests.

In the coming week, we hope to agree internationally the process for establishing a temporary financial mechanism to provide a transparent structure for international financial support for the financial requirements of the NTC, such as public sector pay. Yesterday, Kuwait announced about £110 million of support for the NTC.

I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the skill, bravery and professionalism of the men and women of the UK and our allies’ armed forces. Their actions in the NATO operations have saved many lives and their efforts are essential to bringing a lasting peace and a better future for the Libyan people, who have suffered so much at the hands of this brutal regime. I also pay tribute to those from the international humanitarian community who have put their lives on the line to help their fellow human beings.

The UK is supporting the other needs of the Libyan people in every way we can. The humanitarian situation in the west of the country is getting worse every day. Many civilians in Misrata lack access to basic necessities, including food, water and electricity. There is a shortage of some crucial medical supplies. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced last week that the UK will provide medical and other emergency supplies, and undertake the evacuation of 5,000 migrants stranded at Misrata port in squalid conditions. The UK has so far given more than £13 million to meet immediate humanitarian needs through funding for medical and food supplies and emergency shelter, and assisting in the evacuation of poor and vulnerable migrants. In Misrata alone, British support has given 10,000 people food and 2,000 families water and hygiene kits, and it has provided essential medical staff. The regime must guarantee unfettered humanitarian access and not just give broken promises, which put the lives of aid workers and volunteers at risk.

The wave of demand for change in the Arab world continues to gain momentum in other nations. As I said earlier today, we condemn utterly the violence and killings perpetrated by the Syrian security forces against civilians who are expressing their views in peaceful protests. That violent repression must stop. President Assad must order his authorities to show restraint and to respond to the legitimate demands of his people with immediate and genuine reform, not brutal repression. The emergency law should be lifted in practice and the legitimate aspirations of the people met.

The United Kingdom is working intensively with our international partners to persuade the Syrian authorities to stop the violence and to respect the basic and universal human rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Syria is at a fork in the road. Its Government can still choose to bring about the radical reform which alone can provide peace and stability for Syria in the long term, and we urge them to do so, or they can choose ever more violent repression, which can only bring short-term security for the authorities. If they do so, we will work with our European partners and others to take measures, including sanctions, that will have an impact on the regime. Given our concerns for British nationals in Syria, we changed our travel advice on Sunday to advise against all travel there and to advise that British nationals should leave unless there is a pressing need for them to remain.

On Yemen, the UK welcomes this morning’s news that the efforts of the Gulf Co-operation Council countries to resolve the political deadlock are close to success. I understand that President Saleh and the parliamentary opposition have accepted the GCC’s proposal. That is potentially good news. Both sides now need to come together to confirm their commitment to the peaceful, inclusive and timely transition process that the GCC has brokered. The UK remains committed to its long-standing support for Yemen in these difficult times.

Although the immediate situation in Bahrain is calmer, there continue to be credible reports of human rights abuses. I urge the Government of Bahrain to meet all their human rights obligations and to uphold political freedoms, equal access to justice and the rule of law. Dialogue is the way to fulfil the aspirations of all Bahrainis. I urge all sides, including opposition groupings, to engage with each other.

In Egypt, which I will visit shortly, we welcome the actions being taken by the authorities to move towards a broad-based, civilian-led Government and an open and democratic society.

In Tunisia, we are providing support with EU partners to help its Government meet the wishes of the Tunisian people. On 11 April, the commission responsible for bringing together opposition parties and civil society approved the draft law for the constituent assembly elections scheduled for 24 July. That is a step towards free and fair elections, and an open and democratic society.

The European Union has a crucial role to play in the southern Mediterranean. The great changes in the Arab world are truly historic, and the response from the nations of the EU should be bold and ambitious. The review of the European neighbourhood policy is due to be published in a fortnight. We have been making the case that we have the opportunity to use that policy to help the peoples of the southern Mediterranean achieve their desire for freer and more prosperous societies. A renewed neighbourhood policy should see the EU using its economic magnetism to encourage and support political and economic reform in neighbouring countries. A partnership of equals should reward those who make the necessary political and economic reforms and, importantly, withdraw benefits from those who do not.

Finally, it remains essential that progress is made in the search for a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is what the majority of ordinary Palestinians and Israelis demand of their leaders. The extraordinary changes in the region are an opportunity to be seized, not an excuse for further prevarication leading to more frustration and discontent.

In our response to the dramatic events in north Africa and the middle east, we will continue to stand for reform, not repression, and for the addressing of grievances rather than brutal reprisals. It is a policy in accordance with our own beliefs, in line with our own national interest and in pursuit of the peace and prosperity of the wider world.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement this afternoon.

I join the Foreign Secretary by saying that the Opposition, too, support the Gulf Co-operation Council initiative to resolve the current crisis in Yemen and achieve a peaceful political settlement. I also associate myself with his remarks regarding the continued need for a focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the need for a review of the European neighbourhood policy.

I begin with Syria. Every Member will have been appalled by the recent reports of Government violence and repression there. First, on the question of UK nationals, can the Foreign Secretary provide an estimate of the number who are in Syria at present, and can he assure us that all contingency plans are in place should it prove necessary, in time, for them to leave?

Of course, I fully support the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation this afternoon of the actions of the Syrian Government, but it was only a few weeks ago, on 27 January, that he travelled to Damascus to meet President Assad. From those conversations, how likely does he judge it that President Assad will now heed the calls for restraint and reform?

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that work is under way at the United Nations. Can he provide more detail on what progress has been made regarding a statement and/or a resolution from the Security Council? In particular, will he outline what financial sanctions and freezes at UN or EU level are being discussed to make clear the international community’s condemnation?

In a statement this morning, the Foreign Secretary said:

“There needs to be accountability for the deaths that have occurred.”

Of course, I concur with that statement. What discussions have been entered into regarding the investigation of accusations of crimes against humanity and regarding Human Rights Watch’s call for an official commission of inquiry? Finally, what discussions has he held with the Turkish Government, among others, to marshal a unified condemnation of the recent actions and assess possible ways forward in the region?

Although news regarding Bahrain has subsided slightly, the reports of the arrests of opposition figures and deaths in custody, and allegations of torture and the denial of medical treatment, are of course extremely concerning. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the progress of the political reform process initiated by King al-Khalifa? Will he also tell us what recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prince, who, it has been reported, has been close to reaching agreements with the protestors? Britain’s historically close ties to Bahrain should give us all the more reason to be clear and unequivocal in our urging of reform, not repression, as a response to popular protests on those islands.

I join the Foreign Secretary in commending our men and women in the armed forces, and those of our allies, for their brave service in Libya while the House has been in recess. The specific operational steps announced by the Government during that time—providing telecommunications, body armour and 10 military advisers—each had an operational rationale reflecting the new realities on the ground. Although we understand that rationale, will the Foreign Secretary now update the summary of legal advice provided to the House to cover each of the announcements made during the recess? The ad hoc and apparently unco-ordinated manner in which they were announced, rooted in no clearly articulated plan, has, I fear, served only to increase anxieties held by many members of the public.

In truth, none of those specific measures is likely significantly to affect the strategic situation in Libya. As things stand, neither Benghazi nor Tripoli appears likely imminently to fall to either side. Can the Foreign Secretary therefore give the House a somewhat fuller assessment of the military situation than he has so far shared with us? I ask that because the Prime Minister’s official spokesman stated this morning, in summarising the Foreign Secretary’s report to the Cabinet, that we need to

“prepare for the long haul”,

yet a press release was published only this weekend on the Foreign Office website entitled, “Foreign Secretary denies claims of stalemate in Libya”. The situation on the ground led the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, to observe on Friday that

“Libya is moving towards stalemate”.

Can the Foreign Secretary share with the House the information or insight on military progress that was available to him that was apparently not shared with America’s most senior military figure?

That brings me to the question of political objectives and the military mission. On 21 March, the Prime Minister told the House from the Dispatch Box that resolution 1973

“explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 713.]

On 14 April, in an article in The Times, the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the US and France said that

“so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.”

Would the House be correct to understand that the language in that article means that in the view of the British Government, UN Security Council resolution 1973 cannot be enforced without Gaddafi’s departure? Given the article’s explicit commitment to maintaining NATO operations “so long as Gaddafi” remains “in power”, will the Foreign Secretary clarify whether a Libya free of Gaddafi is a political aim—incidentally, that aim is shared by all in the House—or a military objective of the British Government? Will the Foreign Secretary further say whether, following that joint statement, American fighter aircraft have once again engaged in ground-assault operations, and whether that statement of aims has led to any significant alteration of the US force posture?

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is no plan, no mandate and no appetite for NATO ground troops attempting to fight their way into Tripoli to remove Gaddafi? If so, can he offer a clearer way forward, beyond the intensification of the current efforts that he spoke about in his opening remarks, to achieving the outcome that the Government seek? It is vital that he does so, not simply to ensure that the Government address the concerns at home and abroad, but, crucially, to convince Gaddafi’s henchmen that there is a credible strategy in place to ensure that his brutal attacks on civilians will not prevail.

We seek as broad a coalition as possible for these efforts, and in that spirit I add my welcome to the addition of Italian fighter aircraft to the mission, which we heard announced today. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the precise number of EU, NATO and Arab League countries that are participating in the military operation, and on what efforts are being made to expand those numbers further? Does he believe that the contact group is proving agile and effective enough to direct the mission? Does he further agree that the comparison last week by the Defence Secretary of the current mission in Libya with the Afghanistan campaign, where a decade on we have about 11,000 troops in theatre, not only ignores the different order of magnitude of threat posed by al-Qaeda and its supporters, but needlessly threatens support for the mission at home and abroad? In the light of that comparison, and given the continuing national security threat being confronted in Afghanistan, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that no personnel or equipment will be redeployed from Afghanistan to Libya?

The Government are acting in Libya for principled reasons, but that does not remove our obligation to look at practical questions. In conclusion, in the light of this morning’s statement, which mentioned a “long haul” in Afghanistan, what further diplomatic measures are being pressed by the Government on the international community to strengthen the isolation of, and to increase the pressure on, Gaddafi’s regime?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman particularly for what he said about various countries at the beginning of his questions. I am sure that the whole House will join him in welcoming the seemingly successful efforts of the Gulf Co-operation Council in relation to Yemen. There is also agreement across the House, I think, about the importance of the middle east peace process and a bold and ambitious European neighbourhood policy.

The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about Syria. About 700 British nationals in Syria are now registered with us, although some of them of course will be dual nationals with their families in Syria, and we should not assume that they would want to leave Syria whatever the circumstances there. However, we have contingency plans for their evacuation. Previous to the change of travel advice on Sunday, we advised them to consider leaving Syria by commercial means, and it is still possible to do so—for instance, over the land border to Lebanon and by commercial flights still running every day out of Damascus.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the conversations that I had with President Assad at the end of January. From those conversations, I think I can fairly say that what has happened in Syria over the past couple of weeks will have come as a surprise to the President and the Government. I asked him then why he thought that Syria would be different from what had already begun to happen in Egypt and Tunisia, and he said that it was because of Syria’s clear ideology, the continuing resistance to Israel and the popular support for the Government in Syria. Clearly, however, there are common aspirations in many of these countries for economic freedom and greater political rights, and therefore the position of the Syrian authorities in relation to their population was not as strong as he and his Government assessed. Of course, we have many differences with the Government of Syria on many foreign policy subjects that I discussed with him. For a long time Governments of the United Kingdom have urged the Government of Syria in the direction of greater respect for human rights. Had they taken that advice, including from previous Foreign Secretaries, such as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), they would be in a stronger position today.

The right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) was right to ask about work with the Turkish Government. I regard them as holding a central position in working with other nations on how we should proceed on Syria. I discussed the matter at length last night with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and we are in close and daily touch with the Turkish Government. The work on what may happen at the UN and in the EU is of course at a preliminary stage, and it will be difficult at the UN Security Council, because not all the permanent members will see this in the same light, so I do not want to raise expectations of action at the Council. That would be unrealistic. However, we are working closely with our European and American colleagues on the Council to see how we can proceed, and we are doing initial work on what action the EU could take. However, I cannot go into more detail about that at this stage.

On Bahrain, the dialogue between the Government and the opposition is not overtly progressing. However, the authorities there have reiterated to us their determination to proceed with and reignite that dialogue. I spoke recently to the Foreign Minister of Bahrain, Sheikh Khalid al-Khalifa, to ask for his commitment to that, as well as to investigation of the human rights issues that I have mentioned in the House, and he has given those commitments. As I said in my statement, therefore, we look to all sides in Bahrain to commit themselves to that dialogue. That is the only way forward for a country in Bahrain’s situation. However, I do not have any reports of success in that dialogue to give to the House now.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Libya and our various announcements over the recess of non-lethal assistance to the transitional national council. It was my decision in every case to make public the information as soon as possible about every form of assistance. It might have satisfied his desire to avoid what he called ad hoc announcements had we waited to put them all together, but in my view it would not have satisfied the interests of full transparency and of giving Parliament the necessary information as soon as it became available by depositing it in the Library. This is a fast-moving situation. How we help the transitional national council has to be agreed with other countries in order that we do not duplicate what they do, so how we are able to assist the council will change from week to week. However, we will keep the House informed as rapidly as possible, as we did over the recess, even if that means that announcements come out at different times and are followed one after the other.

It is important to remember that the military situation remains fluid and has not settled into a stalemate. Hon. Members will be aware of how much the situation in Misrata has changed over recent days. Fighting has gone backwards and forwards on the western borders of Libya, and although there is a fairly static situation on what might be called the eastern front, between Brega and Ajdabiya, it has not yet settled into what one would call a long-term stalemate. The military mission is defined by the United Nations resolution, and what the Prime Minister said about that on 21 March absolutely stands. That has not changed, although it is the common assessment of all NATO and Arab League nations involved—there might be a difference of view in some African Union nations—that it is impossible to see a way of securing the full implementation of the UN Security Council resolution while Colonel Gaddafi remains. That is why it is quite right to reiterate, as we all do in this House, that Gaddafi should go. However, the military mission remains defined by the UN Security Council resolution, and there has been no change in the Government’s approach to that.

On the question of NATO participation, there are 16 nations participating in the military effort at the moment. The shadow Foreign Secretary asked whether the contact group of 21 nations and seven international organisations was unwieldy. My experience so far is that it is not unwieldy—provided that it is well chaired, which it has been—but works together well. Having such a wide spread of nations and international organisations might initially look unwieldy, but it allows the contact group to continue the international legitimacy and the broad-based coalition that are present on this occasion and in these operations, the lack of which has sometimes bedevilled our efforts and those of the previous Government in foreign affairs, so it is important to maintain that.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Defence Secretary’s remarks about Afghanistan. The Defence Secretary was simply saying that we wanted Afghans to be able to take on responsibility for their own security; he was not comparing the conflict in Libya to the conflict in Afghanistan, and we should not give that impression. I absolutely agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary that NATO ground troops will not be going into Tripoli to resolve this matter. It is clear in UN resolution 1973 that there should be no foreign occupation of any part of Libya. We will adhere strictly to that, as to all other parts of the resolution. The strategy going forward is what I set out in the statement—to intensify the diplomatic, economic and military pressure.

The point that I made at the Cabinet this morning was that in this situation, time is not on the side of Gaddafi. We are often asked in international conflicts whether time is on our side. We should be confident that in this situation—given this coalition, this range of sanctions and these intensifying efforts—time is not on the side of Gaddafi, and the members of his regime need to know that. The resolve of the international community to implement the UN resolutions—and our resolve, separately from those resolutions, that he should go—is undiminished; indeed, it is strengthened by the experience of recent weeks. We have already achieved the saving of thousands of lives, the assembly of a remarkable international coalition and the prevention of the regime’s re-conquest of Libya by force, which could also have destabilised Egypt and Tunisia. These things have been worth achieving in the last five weeks, and if we continue to intensify our work in the way that I have described, we will indeed go on to success.

Africa and the Middle East

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Mr Speaker, with permission, I will update the House on recent developments in Africa and the middle east. Before I do, I know that hon. Members on both sides will wish to join me in expressing sadness and outrage at the killing of seven international UN workers in Afghanistan this weekend. They put themselves in harm’s way to support a better life for the Afghan people. I pay tribute to those who died and call for their killers to be brought to justice.

The House will also share our concern about the heavy loss of life in Côte d’Ivoire. The UN has confirmed at least 462 deaths and up to 1 million people have been displaced. I discussed the situation this morning with Jean Ping, who chairs the African Union Commission. The African Union has led mediation efforts. We are also in close contact with the rightful President, Mr Ouattara. The Security Council will meet tomorrow to discuss its response. We call for an end to the violence, for defeated former President Gbagbo to step down, for all human rights abuses to be investigated and for the International Criminal Court to investigate the crimes that appear to have taken place.

We also remain in close contact with the small British community in Côte d’Ivoire. Since December, our advice to British nationals has been to leave the country. France is leading on plans to evacuate nationals of EU nations if it becomes necessary. We have sent a rapid deployment team to Paris, ready to be part of any evacuation, and consular officers in the region are on standby.

Britain continues to play its part in the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1973 to protect civilians in Libya, and 34 nations are now providing a range of assistance. NATO has assumed full operating capability over all military operations, and since Thursday, a total of 701 sorties and 276 strike sorties have been conducted. The coalition has all but eliminated the regime’s air defence capability and stopped it bombarding Libyan cities from the air. We are destroying key regime military assets, including main battle tanks and mobile artillery. The arms embargo is being enforced. We have prevented a huge loss of life and a humanitarian catastrophe.

However, the regime is still able to inflict considerable damage on Libya’s civilian population using ground forces, and indeed is deliberately inflicting such harm, particularly in the towns of Brega, Misrata and Zintan, where the heaviest fighting is taking place. So long as the regime continues to attack areas of civilian population, the coalition will continue military action to implement the UN Security Council resolution. We take every precaution to minimise the risk of causing civilian death and are seeking verification of incidents where this nevertheless may have happened.

We are one of more than 30 nations contributing to the humanitarian effort in Libya. Food distribution is taking place at six locations in opposition-held areas in the east of the country. The World Food Programme has more than 10,000 tonnes of food positioned inside Libya and neighbouring countries, and hopes to reach 85,000 people. The Department for International Development is flying tents for more than 10,000 displaced people from its stocks in Dubai to be distributed by the Red Crescent. Several consignments of medical supplies have been successfully delivered to Misrata and, yesterday, a Turkish hospital ship was able to evacuate 230 wounded people.

A further British diplomatic mission has travelled to Benghazi, led by Christopher Prentice. As I explained to the House last week, we are not engaged in arming the opposition forces. We are prepared to supply non-lethal equipment that will help with the protection of civilian lives and the delivery of humanitarian aid. Given the urgent need of the interim transitional national council for telecommunications equipment, the National Security Council has decided this morning to supply it with such equipment.

On Wednesday, Libya’s Foreign Minister, Musa Kusa, joined other prominent Libyan figures who have resigned their positions. He flew to the UK from Tunisia of his own volition, having notified our authorities shortly before his departure of his intention to travel here. In accordance with the EU travel ban, he was refused formal leave to enter the UK but was granted temporary admission and met by officials. Musa Kusa is not being offered any immunity from British or international justice. He is not detained by us and has taken part in discussions with officials, since his arrival, of his own free will. Today, my officials are meeting representatives of the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway police to discuss their request to interview him in connection with the Lockerbie bombing. We will encourage Musa Kusa to co-operate fully with all requests for interviews with law enforcement and investigation authorities, in relation to Lockerbie as well as other issues stemming from Libya’s past sponsorship of terrorism, and to seek legal representation where appropriate. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, these investigations are entirely independent of Government; they should follow the evidence wherever it leads them, and the Government will assist them in any way possible.

Musa Kusa’s departure weakens the regime and exposes its utter lack of legitimacy, even in the eyes of those most closely associated with it in the past. It confirms that there is no future for Libya with Gaddafi in power. It is right that, in these circumstances, when the Foreign Minister of a regime that is committing atrocities against its own people wishes to leave that country and to take no part in what is happening, we should assist in that process. We will treat those abandoning the Gaddafi regime in the following way. Any who travel to the UK to speak to us will be treated with respect and in accordance with our laws. Any immigration issues will be considered on their merits as with any other case. If our law enforcement authorities wish to speak to them about crimes committed by the regime, Her Majesty’s Government will in no way prevent them from doing so.

In the case of anyone currently sanctioned by the EU and UN who breaks definitively with the regime, we will discuss with our partners the merits of removing the restrictions that apply to them while being clear that that does not constitute any form of immunity whatsoever. We will begin such discussions at the EU this week in the case of Musa Kusa. Sanctions are designed to change behaviour and it is therefore right that they are adjusted when new circumstances arise. We continue to offer our full support to the investigations of the International Criminal Court.

The Libyan regime is under pressure. What is required from it is clear: a genuine ceasefire as set out by President Obama and others including our Prime Minister last month, an end to all attacks against civilians, the withdrawal of armed forces from contested cities and full access for humanitarian assistance. When those requirements of the UN are fulfilled, air strikes to protect civilians can stop. The world is united in believing that the Gaddafi regime has lost all legitimacy and that he must go, allowing the Libyan people to determine their own future.

We continue to pursue tough sanctions at the EU. Additional sanctions on five Libyan companies and two individuals are being discussed at the EU today and if agreed will be in place on 12 April. We also continue to pursue additional sanctions with our international partners at the UN and we hope to achieve agreement soon. The first meeting of the contact group on Libya that was agreed at the London conference last week will take place next week in Doha, and I will attend. It will take forward the work agreed at the London conference, maintain international unity and bring together a wide range of nations in support of a better future for Libya.

Elsewhere in the region, we remain very concerned about the political situation in Bahrain. It is vital for the future stability of the country that the Government and leaders from all communities work together to reduce sectarian tension and to create the conditions in which a national dialogue can lead to real political reform. In Yemen, attempts at agreeing a political transition have repeatedly stalled or failed. There is an urgent need for steps to meet the legitimate demands of the Yemeni people and we call on President Saleh to engage with the opposition and with the protesters in a way that meets these aspirations and avoids violence.

We are deeply concerned by further deaths and violence in Syria. We call on the Syrian Government to respect the rights to free speech and peaceful protest. We call for restraint from the Syrian security forces and for the Syrian authorities to investigate the deaths of protestors and bring those responsible to account through a fair and transparent process. We note the announcement of certain reforms and believe that meaningful reforms that address the legitimate demands of the Syrian people are necessary and right.

The United Kingdom believes that the people of all these countries must be able to determine their own futures and that the international community must be bold and ambitious in supporting those countries that are on the path to greater political and economic freedom. That is why across the region we stand for reform not repression, and why in Libya, supported by the full authority of the United Nations, we are acting to save many lives threatened by one of the most repressive regimes of them all.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for allowing me advance sight of it this afternoon. May I also join him in expressing revulsion on behalf of the Opposition at the murders of the seven UN workers in Afghanistan this weekend? He is right—and speaks for the whole House in this—generously to commend their work and unequivocally to condemn their killers.

May I also associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s comments about the gravely worrying situation in Côte d’Ivoire? I welcome news that he has held discussions this morning with the chair of the African Union Commission, Jean Ping, and that contingency plans are in place for any evacuation deemed necessary. I join the Foreign Secretary in stating clearly and categorically that Laurent Gbagbo must step down immediately. If he does not stand down, there is clearly a risk of a repeat of the situation we had in Angola in 1992 when a disputed election led to a protracted civil war. Given that risk, will the Foreign Secretary share with the House his assessment, in the light of those conversations with the African Union, of Nigeria’s willingness to contemplate supporting any west African-led intervention force in Côte d’Ivoire? Given the prior opposition to such a move by Ghana and Gambia, what assessment has he made of the possibility that the Economic Community of West African States might be able to agree to an intervention force in the event of the conflict continuing in the days, weeks and months ahead? What assessment has he made of the number of Governments in the African Union that still support Mr Gbagbo?

On Syria, on Friday thousands of Syrians took to the streets of Douma after prayers and were reported by the BBC to have been chanting, “We want freedom.” Yesterday it was reported that again thousands of people had taken to the streets there, this time to bury at least eight people who died during Friday’s protests. The legitimate demands of these protestors should be met, as the Foreign Secretary said, by reform and not by repression. What assessment has he made of the likely impact on the reform process of the appointment of the new Prime Minister, Adel Safar?

Let me associate myself and the Opposition with the position set out by the Foreign Secretary on both Yemen and Bahrain.

The situation in Libya has, of course, dominated debate within and beyond the House in recent weeks. The Foreign Secretary at the weekend was optimistic that we have not yet reached a stage of stalemate, but beyond protecting civilians from the air, UN resolution 1973 provided a range of diplomatic powers intended to deepen the isolation and increase the pressure on the Gaddafi regime. These included an expansion of asset freezes, enforcing the arms embargo and measures to prevent mercenaries from flying into Libya. Will the Foreign Secretary provide an update specifically on the implementation of these non-military diplomatic aspects of resolution 1973?

I welcome the fact that Christopher Prentice’s team is in Benghazi assessing the situation and entering into dialogue with the interim national council. The Foreign Secretary has just told the House that “we are not engaged in arming the opposition forces. We are prepared to supply non-lethal equipment that will help with the protection of civilian lives and the delivery of humanitarian aid.” He went on to say that he had decided this morning with his colleagues on the National Security Council to supply the transitional national council with telecommunications equipment. Will he therefore inform the House whether opposition military forces have been in receipt of any support from British military personnel in maintaining or upgrading the military equipment that they already possess?

Turning to the case of Musa Kusa, his defection should be taken as a welcome sign of the disillusionment and disunity within the Gaddafi regime. Following that defection, can the Foreign Secretary give us his latest assessment of the situation within the Gaddafi regime? In particular, how seriously should the House treat the discussions between Musa Kusa’s successor and the Greek Foreign Minister in trying to find a way of resolving the conflict? Clearly, our first priority has to be the urgent operational need to ascertain information from Musa Kusa with respect to the present conflict in Libya. UN Security Council resolution 1973 must be enforced, and if he can help in any way to bring that about, all sides of the House must surely welcome it.

However, many in the House will want to know that Musa Kusa is not and should not be above British or international law. Last week I supported calls saying that the appropriate authorities including, of course, the police should in time be able to ask him all the necessary questions about Libya’s violent history, not least here on British soil. The murder of a police officer in Northern Ireland on Saturday, on which Ministers are due to give a statement later today, will no doubt remind the House of the links between the Libyan regime in the past and decades of terrorism on British soil.

I welcome the news, therefore, that the Scottish Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway constabulary are now in discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how to pursue their investigations. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether any other authorities in the United Kingdom or in other countries at the international level have been in contact with the Foreign Office over the arrival of Musa Kusa as part of their investigations into Libyan terrorism or crimes against humanity perpetrated in Libya?

In conclusion, both sides of the House supported the decision to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973. The members of our armed forces, of course, have the continuing support of the House, and the Government have our continued support in using diplomatic means to maintain pressure on, and deepen the isolation of, the Gaddafi regime.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what continues to be strong bipartisan support for the operations that are taking place in Libya. He mentioned his revulsion at the events in Afghanistan—the murders of the UN workers. That will be felt across the House and the whole international community.

On Côte d’Ivoire, the right hon. Gentleman asked how many African Union nations there are now that do not believe Mr Gbagbo should stand down. I think the number is down to zero. The whole of the African Union is clear about that. The African Union did try to mediate a solution. It is Mr Gbagbo’s persistence in trying to sit where he is, having clearly lost the election and despite the views of his own countrymen and the efforts of the African Union, that has precipitated the violence we now see.

It is not the belief of west African countries that they will need to provide an intervention force of the kind the right hon. Gentleman describes, but that will be discussed at the UN Security Council tomorrow, as I mentioned in my statement. We will strongly support greater action by the UN and French forces that are in Côte d'Ivoire to help ensure civilian protection in Abidjan and elsewhere. We will also discuss the international response to the mounting civilian casualty list and reports of atrocities in the country. We will urge the swift investigation by the UN-mandated commission of inquiry into reports of horrific human rights abuses in Côte d'Ivoire, which are not necessarily all on one side. All abuses must be investigated. However, I do not think that Nigeria and other west African countries are contemplating an intervention force on top of the fighting that is happening there now.

In Syria, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a new Prime Minister has been appointed. As in all these cases, we will have to judge by actions, rather than words. The Syrian President has committed himself to certain reforms, but it is clear that many in Syria would like those to be much more far reaching. We in the United Kingdom recommend reforms that meet the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. I think that the new Prime Minister, and indeed the President, will be judged by that.

On Libya, the overall implementation of the sanctions set out in UN resolutions 1970 and 1973 is particularly good by the standards of these things because there is very strong international agreement on them. The vast majority of nations in the world are fully behind the sanctions. That has led to freezes on tens of billions of dollars of the regime’s assets. The conflict has led to oil not being lifted from Libya, so the principal income of the regime has also been very seriously affected. The right hon. Gentleman asked about opposition forces and whether British forces had been involved in any way in upgrading, improving or maintaining the equipment. I am not aware of any such efforts, so the answer to that question is no.

I discussed with the Greek Foreign Minister this morning the efforts and discussions that took place late last night in Athens between the Deputy Foreign Minister of Libya and the Greek leaders. The Libyans again put forward, as they have in various discussions over the past three weeks, their intention to have a ceasefire, but of course the Gaddafi regime has three times announced a ceasefire and yet continued its attacks, particularly the attacks on the people of Misrata, who have been placed in a desperate situation. I believe that my colleague, the Greek Foreign Minister, conveyed the message that we would want him to convey, which is that a ceasefire will be judged by actions, not words, and that we wish to see the Gaddafi regime observing the requirements that the international community has placed on it. I think that these attempts to have discussions with other countries are a sign of the pressure that the regime is under, but the solution is in their hands to adopt a genuine ceasefire and then, in the interests of their country, make it clear that Colonel Gaddafi will go.

I hope that my statement answered satisfactorily all the questions that the right hon. Gentleman raised about Musa Kusa. Musa Kusa has come to a society that is based on law, and the way in which we treat people who come to this country will be based on law. They will not be given immunity from prosecution from British or international authorities. Equally, we cannot put them under a restraint that is not justified by evidence against them. If they are not under arrest, they are of course free to move around. Our response in every way will be based on law, just as our international response, our implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, is based on international law. We stick to the implementation of that resolution—nothing more and nothing less—in the military action we are undertaking, and that gives us our strong moral, legal and diplomatic position.

Libya (London Conference)

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the outcome of the London conference on Libya and related events.

I informed the House last Thursday that planning was under way to transfer coalition operations from US to NATO command and control. On Sunday, NATO allies decided to take on full responsibility for the implementation of all military aspects of Security Council resolution 1973, including the civilian protection mission, along with the no-fly zone and arms embargo operations which are now under NATO command. The transition to full NATO command is under way. The North Atlantic Council will provide executive political direction for the military operations, and is meeting later today. I hope the whole House will welcome the speed with which NATO has moved to put in place the planning and launch of those three demanding operations more quickly than was the case for Bosnia or Kosovo.

There are currently 16 nations contributing assets to coalition operations, including nations from the middle east region. Fifteen nations have now committed a total of nearly 350 aircraft, and vessels from 10 nations are supporting the arms embargo. Yesterday, Sweden announced that it would contribute eight fighter aircraft, and the United Arab Emirates publicly announced its contribution of 12 air defence fighters on Friday last week. The NATO Secretary-General has issued a request for further contributions, which we hope other countries will consider seriously.

UK forces have undertaken more than 160 aerial missions over Libya since operations began, in addition to missile strikes. We are continuing to target the military hardware that Gaddafi is using to kill his own people. Over the weekend, in addition to patrolling the no-fly zone, RAF aircraft destroyed a number of main battle tanks and armoured vehicles near Misrata. The RAF also took part in a successful coalition mission against an ammunition storage facility store near Sabha early on Monday morning.

As evidence of the care that we are taking to minimise the risk of civilian casualties, yesterday I received a letter from the local council in Misrata thanking Britain and our allies for the targeted strikes and the enforcement of the no-fly zone, which are alleviating pressure on the people of Misrata. The letter stated that the local council could

“testify for the effectiveness and the accuracy of those strikes and confirm that there has been not a single case of civilian injury let alone death in and around Misrata”

as a result of coalition activity. That is testament to the skill, experience and precision of our armed forces, and the whole House will join me in paying tribute to them. Our country literally could not do without them for a single day, and they are doing a great job in support of the civilian population of Libya.

The situation on the ground remains fluid. Regime forces have intensified their attacks, driving back opposition forces from ground that they had taken in recent days. Misrata also came under heavy attack yesterday, with further loss of civilian life, including children, from mortars, sniper fire and attacks on all sides from regime tanks and personnel carriers. The Department for International Development has been involved in funding the successful provision of humanitarian assistance to the city, and we are urgently examining options for the provision of further assistance. One obstacle to humanitarian support for the people of Misrata has been regime vessels trying to blockade the port. Those vessels were attacked by coalition aircraft yesterday and four of them were sunk and one was beached.

To underline our grave concern at the regime’s behaviour, I can announce to the House that we have today taken steps to expel five diplomats at the Libyan embassy in London, including the military attaché. The Government judged that were those individuals to remain in Britain, they could pose a threat to our security. We also remain strongly committed to supporting the International Criminal Court in its investigations into crimes in Libya and to ensuring that there is no impunity for barbaric acts against the Libyan people.

In my last statement to the House, I confirmed that I had invited the envoy of the interim transitional national council, Mahmoud Jabril, to visit London. He did so yesterday, for meetings with me and with the Prime Minister and to launch the council’s vision for a democratic Libya. I will place a copy of that document in the Library of the House.

A British diplomatic mission also visited Benghazi on Monday and Tuesday this week, headed by a senior British diplomat, Christopher Prentice. The purpose of the mission was to meet key Libyan opposition groups in eastern Libya, including the ITNC and its military council; to gain a greater insight into the political and security situation; to explain British Government policies towards Libya; and to discuss future governance arrangements in Libya, including identifying what Britain can do to help. The team met the president of the ITNC, Mustafa al-Jalil, among others. It has now left Libya, and further missions will follow shortly.

Yesterday, delegations including more than 30 Foreign Ministers, the UN Secretary-General and representatives of the Arab League, the European Union, NATO and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference met in London. Our Government went into the conference with three objectives, all of which were met. The first was to strengthen and broaden the international coalition committed to implementing Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973. This was achieved. Many more countries were involved in the conference and supporting our objectives than at the time of the Paris summit 11 days ago.

Secondly, we aimed to focus attention on the delivery of urgent humanitarian assistance to alleviate suffering in Misrata and at Libya’s borders, and to plan for the needs of Libya after conflict. The conference agreed priorities for a humanitarian response and welcomed an offer from the UN Secretary-General to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and planning for longer-term stabilisation support. Turkey, other key regional players and international agencies offered to support that work and take it forward.

Contingency military planning also continues in the EU to enable support to humanitarian operations, if so requested by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, as agreed at the European Council last Friday. It is right that we start planning now to support Libyans over the long term to build a peaceful and prosperous future.

Thirdly, we argued that the conference must agree the need for a political process, led by the Libyan people, that helps to create the conditions in which the people of Libya can choose their own future, supported by the international community. Military action is not an end in itself. The announcement of a political programme by the ITNC was an important first step in that process. The conference was also attended by the UN Secretary-General’s special representative for Libya, Mr al-Khatib, who travelled to Libya last night. The conference agreed that Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy, and to continue efforts to isolate him and his regime by considering additional sanctions on individuals and companies associated with the regime.

We agreed to establish a Libya contact group to take that work forward. The contact group will provide leadership and overall political direction to the international effort to support Libya; act as a forum for co-ordinating international policy on Libya; and provide a focal point in the international community for contact with the Libyan parties. Qatar has agreed to convene the first meeting of the group, which we will co-chair. Thereafter, the chairmanship will rotate between the countries of the region and beyond it.

Security Council resolution 1973 laid out very clear conditions that the Gaddafi regime must meet, including the establishment of an immediate ceasefire, a halt to all attacks on civilians and full humanitarian access to those in need. Participants in the conference agreed to continue their efforts until all those conditions are fulfilled. The Libyan regime will be judged by its actions and not by its words.

The London conference showed that we are united in our aims—seeking a Libya that does not pose a threat to its own citizens or to the region, and working with the people of Libya as they choose their own way forward to a peaceful and stable future. It also demonstrated clear international support for the people of Libya. With that support, there is every prospect of focused and sustained assistance to the people of Libya as they seek to determine their own future.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, although I regret that a copy of it was not made available timeously ahead of Prime Minister’s questions. None the less, I place on record my appreciation for the work of Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and officials in facilitating yesterday’s London meeting.

The meeting made progress on a number of fronts on which the Opposition had specifically sought action. The establishment of a friends of Libya contact group is something that I have advocated for some weeks, and I now welcome it. Let me re-state our support for the work of our armed forces—both the RAF and the Royal Navy—in implementing UN Security Council resolution 1973. I also join the participants in the summit in welcoming the UN Secretary-General’s offer to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and planning for longer-term stabilisation support.

Although progress was made yesterday, comments from both inside and outside the conference have raised real questions for the Government. First, from the outset of this crisis, the Opposition have been keen that the Arab League and the African Union play a strong role. The Arab League was an early supporter of a no-fly zone, and African members of the Security Council supported resolution 1973. There will therefore be concerns that Saudi Arabia failed to attend yesterday’s conference, and although we welcome the presence of representatives of Tunisia and Morocco, there were few African states at the table and no representative of the African Union. Can the Foreign Secretary explain that and update the House on what work is being done to broaden and deepen the coalition of support for action beyond those who attended yesterday’s conference?

Secondly, the question regarding the arming of rebels of the eastern part of Libya has two parts: would it be legal, and if it were, would it be advisable? Yesterday, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said on the legality of arming the forces of eastern Libya:

“It is our interpretation that 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that.”

Two weeks ago, in a debate following the passage of resolution 1973, the Prime Minister was asked the same question about the resolution by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He replied that

“our legal understanding is that that arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 623.]

The summary legal memorandum that the Government provided to the House for the debate on United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 is silent on this question. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary appeared to be moving closer to the US position, saying:

“Those resolutions in our view apply to the whole of Libya, although it is consistent with resolution 1973 to give people aid in order to defend themselves in particular circumstances.”

Will he therefore give the House his view on the legality of arming anyone in Libya under the terms of both Security Council resolutions? Given the importance and significance of this issue, will he also undertake to update the summary legal memorandum and to place copies of it in the Library of the House of Commons, so as to set out definitively the Government’s position on the interpretation of the Security Council resolutions?

The issue of the legality of arming the rebels sits alongside the issue of its advisability. NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe warned yesterday:

“We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential Al Qaeda, Hezbollah”.

This is therefore a pressing and urgent question for the Government. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree with me that, to date, the case has not been made on the advisability of taking this course of action. Of course we would all prefer a Libya without Gaddafi, but, given our lack of knowledge about some elements of the rebel forces, does he agree that we must proceed with very real caution on the question of armaments? Can he confirm that all efforts are being made to identify the risk of links to al-Qaeda? Further, can he confirm whether Libyan nationals, including from eastern Libya, have been involved in the insurgency that opposed our troops in Iraq or in the continuing conflict in Afghanistan?

The other question that has been raised in the past day is that of Gaddafi himself. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has said that he is “one hundred per cent” certain that his investigation will lead to charges of crimes against humanity against Gaddafi and his regime. Yesterday, however, the Foreign Secretary’s ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), said that Britain

“would not stand in the way”

if Gaddafi were to leave the country. Can the Foreign Secretary set out the Government’s position on whether they would now be prepared for Gaddafi’s escape from international justice in order to prevent further bloodshed?

On 21 March, the Government received a specific mandate from the House for a specific mission in Libya, as set out in Security Council resolution 1973. I welcome the fact that post-conflict planning is now more firmly on the international agenda after yesterday’s meeting, but may I take the Foreign Secretary back to what the US President said when resolution 1973 was passed? He said that the resolution

“authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing, to include the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya. It also strengthens our sanctions and the enforcement of an arms embargo against the Qaddafi regime.”

President Obama continued:

“The resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.”

Can the Foreign Secretary therefore confirm whether, in the view of the British Government, the achievement of those conditions set out by President Obama still represent the fulfilment of the mission? Hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome a Libya free of Gaddafi’s tyranny, but the consent of the international community—and the consent of the House—was given for a specific mission, with specific aims and limitations.

As I said at the outset of this crisis, the Opposition will provide support for the enforcement of the UN resolution and sustained scrutiny of its implementation. In that spirit, I ask the Foreign Secretary to provide greater clarity in his reply, particularly on the questions of the legality of arming the rebels, the character of some of the anti-Gaddafi forces, the role of the International Criminal Court and the limited nature of this mission.

[Mr Hague]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for continuing the wide support for the idea of a contact group. It received unanimous support at the conference yesterday, which is why it was so easy to proceed with it and, indeed, with recognising the role of the UN Secretary-General in offering to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the attendance or otherwise of the Arab League and the African Union. The Arab League was well represented at yesterday’s meeting. The Secretary-General, Amr Moussa, was not able to come and he explained to me why he could not, but he sent his chef de cabinet, an ambassador, who made a powerful speech at the conference on the Arab League’s strong support for implementing the UN Security Council’s resolutions and for the action taken so far. No one should be in any doubt about the position of the Arab League. It is true, of course, that the African Union did not attend; there were divisions within in it over whether it should. We are in constant touch with the African Union and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in almost daily touch with its chairman. I have had several conversations about this issue with President Museveni of Uganda. Clearly, the African Union does not have a united position, but we will invite it to engage with the contact group that we are establishing and we will keep our regular communication going.

On the question of arming the rebels, the Prime Minister made the position clear at Prime Minister’s questions. We have said that everything we do must comply with the Security Council resolutions, which also relates to the right hon. Gentleman’s last point. It is a point I make constantly—that everything we do must be consistent with those resolutions. It is acting strictly in accordance with UN resolutions that gives a legal, moral and international authority to our deeds, which has not, of course, always been there before. As I have already told the House, and as the Prime Minister said in the debate a couple of weeks ago, the legal position is that the arms embargo applies to the whole territory of Libya. At the same time, our legal advice is that resolution 1973 allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas and that this would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. Clearly, there are differing views internationally about the legal position, but I have explained what is the view of the British Government. As the Prime Minister told the House, we do not rule it out, but we have not taken any decision to provide that assistance.

In response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the Prime Minister also indicated at Prime Minister’s questions that the Government would indeed proceed with caution on this subject, as the shadow Foreign Secretary asked us to do. Questions of advisability, as the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, are different from questions of legality. We will always be very conscious of that. Of course, if we changed our policy, we would certainly want to inform the House, but we are not currently engaged in any arming of the opposition or rebel forces.

Of course we want to know about any links with al-Qaeda, as we do about links with any organisations anywhere in the world, but given what we have seen of the interim transitional national council in Libya, I think it would be right to put the emphasis on the positive side, as the Prime Minister did earlier. From everything we saw from our meetings with members of the council yesterday and from telephone conversations I have had with other members, I believe it is sincere in its commitment to a pluralistic, open Libya. The council published yesterday what is in effect its manifesto, which states its commitment to freedom of expression and freedom of the media, to the development of political parties and civil society and so forth. I think we should welcome that and I think there is a genuine and strong desire in Libya among the opposition groups to bring those things about. It would give the wrong impression of those groups, from everything we have seen and everything that our diplomat, Christopher Prentice, saw in Benghazi, to accentuate any allegations of links with other groups outside Libya rather than to accentuate those intentions that they clearly hold dear to their hearts.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the International Criminal Court. I mentioned in my statement how strictly we uphold its work. The United Kingdom has always done so under successive Governments and it will continue to do so. That does not mean that we can control what happens to Colonel Gaddafi, but we are not proposing to grant him any exemption from the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. That was something that we proposed should be part of UN resolution 1970.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the conditions set by President Obama on behalf of the coalition when the military operations began. Yes, those conditions still apply—the conditions of a real ceasefire, not just a pretend ceasefire. It does not mean the regime sitting in the middle of a town like Misrata and still being engaged at close quarters with the civilian population it is trying to kill. Clearly, a credible ceasefire involves disengaging from those areas. Events have moved on since President Obama made his statement, which was about not advancing on Benghazi. Since then, that has become less relevant, although we do not know whether it will become relevant again. We understand and interpret the requirement for a ceasefire and an end to violence in terms of those general conditions, which involve disengagement in order to fulfil the UN resolution. That reinforces our continuing rigid approach to enforcing the UN resolution and to staying within the UN resolution. We must also keep the international unity and moral authority that our conduct of affairs so far has given us on this issue.

North Africa and the Middle East

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement updating the House on the actions we are taking to protect civilians in Libya and other issues of concern in the middle east.

First, I must confirm the sad news that a British national was killed in a bus-bombing in Jerusalem yesterday, which injured over 30 Israelis, eight of them seriously. Her family was informed last night. Our embassy in Tel Aviv and consulate-general in Jerusalem are doing everything possible to assist her family and those who were travelling with her. I know the House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to her family at this tragic time, as well as in expressing our solidarity with the people of Israel in the face of such a shocking and despicable act of terrorism. I condemn this attack in the strongest terms and call for those responsible to be held to account.

I am also gravely concerned about renewed rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza and the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. I urge all parties to restore calm and to work to achieve the two states that are the only lasting hope for peace.

On Libya, we continue to take robust action to implement UN Security Council resolution 1973, which authorised military action to put in place a no-fly zone to prevent air attacks on Libyan people and take all necessary measures to stop attacks on civilians while ruling out an occupation force. The case for this action remains utterly compelling. Appalling violence against Libyan citizens continues to take place, exposing the regime’s claims to have ordered a ceasefire to be an utter sham.

Misrata has been under siege for days by regime ground forces, although coalition air strikes are helping to relieve the pressure on its citizens, many of whom have been trapped in their homes without electricity or communications, with dwindling supplies of food and water, and facing sniper fire if they venture into the streets, while the local hospital is swamped with casualties. Ajdabiya continues to be under attack, with reports of civilian deaths from tank shells. This underlines the appalling danger its inhabitants would be in without coalition action, as do continued threats by Gaddafi forces to “massacre” residents in areas under bombardment.

There is universal condemnation of what the Libyan regime is doing from the United Nations, the Arab League, the African Union and from Europe. The regime’s actions strengthen our resolve to continue our current operations and our support for the work of the International Criminal Court. Our action is saving lives and protecting hundreds of thousands of civilians in Benghazi and Misrata from the fate that otherwise awaited them. That is what UN Security Council resolution 1973 was for, and that is why we are implementing it.

We are taking the utmost care to minimise the risk of civilian casualties. The only forces acting indiscriminately or deliberately inflicting casualties are the forces of the Gaddafi regime. UK forces have undertaken a total of 59 aerial missions over Libya, in addition to missile strikes. Last night, our forces again participated in a co-ordinated strike against Libyan air defence systems. A no-fly zone has now been established and the regime’s integrated air defence system has been comprehensively degraded. There are no Libyan military aircraft flying.

Over 150 coalition planes have been involved in military operations, including Typhoon and Tornado aircraft from the Royal Air Force. Thirteen nations have currently deployed aircraft to the region. A number of additional nations have made offers of aircraft and other military support, which are in the process of being agreed. Royal Navy vessels are in the region supporting the arms embargo. Those coalition operations are currently under United States command, but we want them to transition to NATO command and control as quickly as possible. NATO has already launched its operation to enforce the arms embargo, its planning is complete for the no-fly zone and we are making progress on NATO taking on all measures under resolution 1973 needed to protect civilians from Gaddafi’s attacks. We need agreement to unified command and control for it to be robust, and we expect to get that agreement soon.

Resolution 1973 lays out very clear conditions that must be met, including an immediate ceasefire, a halt to all attacks on civilians and full humanitarian access to those in need. We will continue our efforts until these conditions are fulfilled, and the Libyan regime will be judged by its actions not its words. Our message to the Gaddafi regime is that the international community will not stand by and watch it kill civilians—that is a view that this House overwhelmingly endorsed last week. To his forces we say that if they continue to take part in Gaddafi’s war against his own people, they will continue to face the military force of the coalition, and if they commit crimes against Libyan people, they will be held to account.

I announced yesterday that Britain will host an international conference next Tuesday to take forward the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1973. We are inviting NATO allies, key international organisations, including the UN, the Arab League and the African Union, and many Arab nations. We continue to engage in intensive diplomatic activity to increase the multilateral pressure on the Libyan regime. Further UN and European Union sanctions have been agreed targeting Gaddafi and his associates, and those Libyan organisations responsible for funding his regime. As of today, the EU has designated the National Oil Corporation of Libya, thus cutting the regime off from future oil revenues.

We are gravely concerned about the well-being of up to 80,000 internally displaced people. The Secretary of State for International Development is in close communication with his counterparts in international organisations about immediate and longer-term support to the Libyan people. The United Kingdom is beginning preliminary consultations with international partners and organisations on an internationally led stabilisation effort to get Libya back on its feet in the longer term.

It is not for us to choose the Government of Libya. That is for the Libyan people themselves, but they have a far greater chance of making that choice now than seemed likely on Saturday, when the opposition forces were on the verge of defeat and the lives of so many were in danger. We continue to deepen our contacts with the Libyan opposition, including the interim national council based in Benghazi. I spoke to Mahmoud Jabril, the special envoy of the council, on Tuesday to discuss the situation on the ground and to invite him to visit London. In the words of the Arab League resolution, the current regime has completely lost its legitimacy. We call on all those, including the interim national council, who believe that Colonel Gaddafi has led the people of Libya into an impasse to begin to organise a transition process.

In Syria, there are reports of many deaths and the use of live rounds after security forces cleared a mosque in Deraa. We call on the Government of Syria to respect their people’s right to peaceful protest and to take action about their legitimate grievances. We also call for the utmost restraint on all sides, including by the Syrian security forces, during the further protests that have been called for tomorrow in Syria. In Bahrain, we support a process of dialogue leading to political reform that can address the legitimate aspirations of all the people of Bahrain, and I urge all parties to join, without preconditions, the proposed national dialogue.

In Yemen, a state of emergency has been declared by the Government and a day of marches is planned in Sana’a tomorrow. There has been looting and disorder in that city and in other cities, and more than 50 protesters died in Sana’a last Friday. We call even now on the opposition, the Government and the various factions of the Government to engage in dialogue. There are still some British nationals who have chosen to remain in Yemen. Since October, we have been unable to provide consular assistance in Yemen because of the significant terrorist threat. There are many parts of Yemen that the ambassador and his staff are unable to reach. In the light of the rapidly deteriorating security situation and the protests tomorrow, I have temporarily withdrawn part of the British embassy team in Sana’a, leaving a small core of staff in place. Commercial flights to and from Yemen are still operating, although that could clearly change. Should there be further violence in Yemen, normal means of leaving, particularly through the commercial airport in Sana’a, could be blocked, and the ability to travel around Yemen will be severely restricted. On 12 March, we advised all British nationals to leave Yemen as soon as they could. As the situation has deteriorated further since, I want to make it absolutely clear today that all British nationals remaining in Yemen should leave without delay.

The United Kingdom believes that the people of all these countries must be able to determine their own futures. That is why in all of them we argue for reform not repression, and why in Libya, supported by the full authority of the United Nations, we have acted to save many lives threatened by one of the most repressive regimes of them all. This will continue to be our approach as change continues to gather pace in the middle east.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for allowing me advance sight of it this morning. May I join him in condemning the act of murder witnessed on the streets of Jerusalem yesterday, where a British national lost her life? This atrocity should be unequivocally condemned across the world, and our condolences are with the people of Israel and the families of those affected, including those in this country.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the situation in Yemen, which the House will know is deeply concerning. Amid the worrying developments, Britain must be consistent in urging the embrace of more democratic government by countries in the region. The Government are therefore right to urge progress on national dialogue with opposition parties and democratic reforms. Now that our embassy team has been withdrawn, for reasons that I fully appreciate, will he tell the House how and through what mechanisms Britain will continue to urge restraint and reform on the Yemini authorities? He explicitly urged UK nationals to leave Yemen, but can he also assure the House that all appropriate contingency plans are in place for any remaining UK nationals?

The BBC reports that at least 10 people have been killed and dozens wounded after Syrian police opened fire on people protesting in Deraa. Given the Foreign Secretary’s very recent visit to Damascus, will he update the House on his views as to whether any further protests are likely to be met with reform or with further repression? Will he also take this opportunity to update the House on any recent discussions the British Government have had with the King of Bahrain about the recent unrest in that country? Will he also inform the House what steps the Government have taken to get a clear picture from the authorities in Saudi Arabia of their intentions towards Bahrain? He will of course understand the risk not only that the legitimate demands of the people of Bahrain are suppressed, but that the country becomes a fulcrum of violence in the region.

I shall now address the pressing situation in Libya. May I associate myself and all Labour Members with the Foreign Secretary’s words of support and admiration for the role our armed forces are playing in this action? Last Monday, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made the case in this House for enforcing UN resolution 1973. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that we support the Government in this action to protect the Libyan people, but it is the Opposition’s responsibility in offering this support also to scrutinise the Government’s actions in implementing the mission.

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House made it clear in Monday’s debate how important it was for this mission to have and to retain broad international and regional support, and therefore welcomed the endorsement of the Arab League. I have been calling for more than a fortnight for a joint meeting of representatives of the Arab League and the European Union, so I welcome today’s news that London will host a meeting next to help to bring together nations involved in this effort. The Prime Minister indicated at the Dispatch Box on Monday that coalition meetings would be a regular occurrence. How regular will they be? Will they be at foreign ministerial or Heads of Government level?

Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the details of the Arab military involvement that has materialised so far and on what has been promised for the immediate future? He updated the House by saying that the UK has undertaken a total of 59 aerial missions, but House how many missions including planes from Arab countries have been undertaken? Will he also be clearer about the UK Government’s position on the NATO command and control structure for this mission? In particular, will he let us know whether he would wish the operations degrading Gaddafi’s assets to be overseen by an ad hoc group of Ministers or to be answerable to the full North Atlantic Council? Does he agree that although the focus at the moment is understandably on the military pressure, it is vital that we maintain and increase pressure on the regime in other ways?

Given the importance placed by resolution 1973 on the prevention of mercenaries arriving in Libya from other countries, will the Foreign Secretary assess the accuracy of reports that mercenaries are still arriving in Libya? What action is being taken against those countries providing mercenaries and will he tell the House what progress has been made on investigating at least the possibility of an escrow account for Libyan oil money that could contribute to a fund to address post-conflict reconstruction in Libya?

Does the Foreign Secretary believe that a lead individual of international standing should be appointed to take charge of co-ordinating post-conflict planning? The whole House and the public will want to know what work is under way on contingency planning. I heard his remarks about an international stabilisation effort and the work of the International Development Secretary. What, in the British Government’s view, are the structures equal to this immense task, who will lead the work and how will the House be assured that this vital work is being done?

Let me ask one final question. Will the Foreign Secretary assure Members that in the light of the coming recess the Government will ensure that Members are kept updated and, if necessary, that the House will be recalled if circumstances merit that course of action? We continue to support the Government and our armed forces as they act to protect the Libyan people and we will continue with that support and with detailed scrutiny of the Government’s decisions in the days ahead.

[Mr Hague]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and for the continued strong unity across the Floor of the House on so many of these issues—on all of them, at the moment. Of course, he joined me in condemning the bomb attack in Israel.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about Yemen, not all the embassy team has been removed. A core of staff remains, including the ambassador, but as I saw for myself when I was in Yemen last month it is not easy for our staff to move around. Last year, there were two separate attempts to kill our ambassador and the embassy staff, and moving around even in the capital is a very difficult process. To move around more broadly in the country is dramatically more difficult and that is why it is so difficult to give consular assistance to British nationals who might be scattered in different parts of Yemen.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are detailed contingency plans that can go into operation at very short notice for the evacuation of the British nationals who remain, but if we had to trigger them it would have to be a military-only evacuation, possibly in very difficult circumstances. It would therefore be difficult to be assured that we would be able to bring out everybody from remote parts of Yemen. That is the importance of stressing now that British nationals should leave. There are reports that oil companies are withdrawing their staff from Yemen. I want to emphasise that we will give every assistance we can and that we have contingency plans ready to go at any time, but that does not guarantee that we could get everybody out.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether further protests in Syria are likely to be met with repression. The evidence is that yes, they would be. Of course, we will use all our diplomatic efforts with the Syrian authorities to say that they should not do so, but that is what has happened and there are reports this morning that up to 25 people have been killed in the protests over the last couple of days.

We are in regular touch with the Government in Bahrain. I think I mentioned a few days ago that the Prime Minister spoke to the King of Bahrain and I spoke to the Foreign Minister a week ago. I hope to speak to the Crown Prince of Bahrain again shortly about the status of the national dialogue that he attempted to launch. Clearly, there have been difficulties on both sides of the argument in Bahrain as regards participating in that national dialogue and it is important that they are all ready to enter into it. The forces that have entered Bahrain from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states are there legitimately at the invitation of Bahrain. They are not engaged in crowd control or in dealing with the protests, but are safeguarding installations. I discussed this at length with Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister, who was here with us two days ago. The British Government are encouraging dialogue in Bahrain and we look to Saudi Arabia to encourage that as well, and we look to all the Gulf states to play a constructive role, which I believe they wish to do.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about Libya, the work of our armed forces continues to enjoy strong international and regional support. I think we should be clear about that. There were some doubts when the House debated the matter on Monday about the position of the Arab League, but it has subsequently made statements giving robust support for the implementation of UN resolution 1973.

We are still working out some of the questions about command and control. The simplest and most effective solution is for all the operations conducted within NATO to come under the North Atlantic Council and for other countries to plug into that and to work with it. We have made a great deal of progress, as I said in my statement. We should understand that this is a new coalition, put together last week and very quickly, for obvious reasons. There are bound to be issues to sort out in its management, but we are getting through them pretty well. I will discuss the remaining issues with Secretary Clinton and with my French and Turkish counterparts later this afternoon to try to iron out the remaining difficulties with future NATO command and control. I should stress that representatives of the nations involved in this operation can meet in Brussels on a regular basis, so the regularity of the meetings is established.

On Arab involvement, the forces of Qatar are taking part in the missions to enforce the no-fly zone. Other Arab nations have not yet sent a military contribution, although they remain strongly supportive of the mission. We are still in discussions with some of them about sending further military contributions to those operations. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to reports of mercenaries entering Libya. Given the danger they might pose to civilians, they do so at their peril and they should be aware of that.

I mentioned how the designation of the National Oil Corporation of Libya means that future oil revenues are stopped. Oil has not been lifted from Libya over the past few weeks, so the flow of oil cash to the regime has stopped for the moment in any case. We are still discussing the idea raised by the right hon. Gentleman about an escrow account.

My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary is working hard on the post-conflict situation. In our view, this must be a unilateral and UN-led effort and we will be able to have discussions about that with other nations at the conference next week. Of course, we will want to keep the House updated. I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for International Development will make further statements as necessary. The Leader of the House has announced a debate just before the House rises for the recess in the week after next. It is probably too early to speculate about the recall of Parliament two weeks before the recess, but we will of course do whatever is necessary to keep the House informed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There is certainly scope to take other non-violent means and the hon. Lady has provided some examples of it. I believe it is important to discuss them with our international partners before announcing them in any detail or giving notice of their coming into effect, but she is quite right to draw attention to the potential for further measures.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has rightly said that Libya is in breach of United Nations Security Council resolution 1970. He went on to state this morning that

“not every nation sees eye-to-eye on issues such as a no-fly zone”.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether specific proposals for a no-fly zone were tabled for discussion at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting last Thursday, at the European Council last Friday or, indeed, at the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting today?

[Mr Hague]

When it comes to specific proposals, NATO is responsible for contingency planning and it is conducting it for specific plans for a no-fly zone. The other meetings were more at the level of political discussion of what is desirable. There are differences of view among many countries about this issue. What was agreed by G8 Foreign Ministers this morning was that we welcomed the recent declaration by the Arab League calling for a number of measures to protect and support the Libyan population. Clearly, what was called for by the Arab League included reference to a no-fly zone.

[Mr Alexander]

Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition about arming the rebels:

“We should not exclude various possibilities, and there is an argument to be made, but there are important legal, practical and other issues that would have to be resolved, including the UN arms embargo.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 30.]

Can the Foreign Secretary update the House on the Government’s position on each of those issues, given the deteriorating situation of the anti-Gaddafi forces on the ground?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was quite right. The arms embargo agreed in United Nations resolution 1970 covers the whole country—that is, as it is understood by the members of the Security Council and by the vast majority of legal experts. The rebels and the Gaddafi regime are therefore in the same position as regards the arms embargo. One way of changing that would be to produce a new resolution, which would again require the agreement of the United Nations Security Council.

In the G8 this morning, we agreed to welcome urgent consideration in the United Nations of

“a wide range of measures to ensure the protection of the Libyan population”

and to

“increase the pressure, including through economic measures, for Mr Qadhafi to leave.”

That now requires additional work at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I join my hon. Friend in deploring any incitement of terrorism by anyone on any side of the disputes in the middle east. We are not aware as Ministers of the particular instance to which he refers, but if he would like to get in touch with us with the details we will, of course, look into it.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

May I associate myself and my colleagues with the Foreign Secretary’s expression of sympathy towards the people of Japan at this terrible time? The right hon. Gentleman told the House on 14 February that the British Government had

“received a request from the Egyptian Government to freeze the assets of several former Egyptian officials.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 715.]

Will he tell the House whether he has acted on that request from the Egyptian authorities and gone ahead and frozen the assets of all those former officials?

[Mr Hague]

We have acted on that request with our European Union partners. One difficulty with pursuing this to the necessary point of freezing the actual assets is the lack of information that has been supplied by the Egyptian authorities. We have urged progress within the European Union so that this is done on an EU basis, and that means that the decisive action remains to be taken. The UK has been at the forefront of the arguments in the EU to take action.

Libya and the Middle East

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on developments in Libya and the middle east since the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday 28 February.

Members on all sides of the House will be concerned by the violence in Libya. The Gaddafi regime is launching military counter-attacks against opposition forces. There has been intense fighting in the east and centre of the country along the coastal strip between the opposition-held Ras Lanuf and the Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte. There are credible reports of the use of helicopter gunships against civilians by Government forces and unconfirmed reports of a helicopter and jet shot down over Ras Lanuf. There have also been serious attacks against the cities of Zawiyah and Misrata in the west by soldiers backed up by anti-aircraft guns and by tanks. Many of those taken to the city’s hospital, including a young boy of 10, have wounds to the head, neck and chest; and supplies of food, fuel and medicines have been all but cut off.

In Tripoli, there have been disturbing reports of hostage taking and large military deployments around the city designed to consolidate Gaddafi’s position and intimidate his opponents. His forces remain in control of Tripoli, Sabha and Sirte, but his authority is contested in large swathes of the country where local tribes have withdrawn their support. There is a clear risk of protracted conflict and an extremely dangerous and volatile situation in large parts of the country.

Our position is that Colonel Gaddafi must put an immediate stop to the use of armed force against civilians and hand over power without delay to a Government who recognise the aspirations of the Libyan people and are more representative and accountable.

On 5 March, opposition groups in the east formed an interim national council based in Benghazi. Ministers and FCO officials are in contact with members of this council, who welcomed the idea of a British diplomatic mission to Libya. This engagement is vital in gaining a better understanding of the political, military and humanitarian situation on the ground.

Last week, I authorised the dispatch of a small British diplomatic team to eastern Libya in uncertain circumstances, which we judged required protection, to build on these initial contacts and to assess the scope for closer diplomatic dialogue. I pay tribute to that team. It was withdrawn yesterday after a serious misunderstanding about its role, leading to its temporary detention. This situation was resolved and it was able to meet council president, Mr Abdul-Jalil. However, it was clearly better for this team to be withdrawn. We intend to send further diplomats to eastern Libya in due course.

The safety of British nationals in Libya remains an important priority. Since the Prime Minister’s statement, the UK military have undertaken a further two evacuation operations from the port of Benghazi, with HMS Cumberland and HMS York both evacuating British nationals and foreign citizens. In total, we have evacuated more than 600 British nationals from Libya, as well as nationals from many other countries. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to all those involved. We are aware of about 180 British nationals still in Libya, some of whom—including some journalists—have told us that they currently intend to stay. We continue to provide assistance and information for those who wish to leave. We are also working with other countries to isolate the regime, and to ensure that anyone responsible for abuses or contemplating further crimes knows that there will be a day of reckoning.

On Thursday, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced his investigation of alleged crimes in Libya, following referral by the UN Security Council. We welcome that swift action, and will do all that we can to assist. We also welcome the important decision by the UN General Assembly, following referral by the UN Human Rights Council, to suspend Libya’s membership of the council. European Union sanctions on Libya came into full force last Thursday. That was the quickest-ever delivery of an EU sanctions package, and it goes beyond the sanctions imposed by the UN. It includes an arms embargo on Libya, and an assets freeze and visa ban on Gaddafi and 25 of his associates—strong foundations on which we can build.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we are making contingency plans for all eventualities in Libya. NATO has been tasked to work on a range of options, including the possible establishment of a no-fly zone, the evacuation of civilians, international humanitarian assistance, and support for the international arms embargo. There will be further NATO meetings this week. At the UN Security Council, we are working closely with partners, on a contingency basis, on elements of a resolution on a no-fly zone, making clear the need for regional support, a clear trigger for such a resolution, and an appropriate legal basis.

My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary visited Tunisia on Friday to assess the humanitarian situation. The UK has flown in blankets for 38,000 people and tents for over 10,000 people, and has sent aeroplanes to repatriate more than 6,000 stranded Egyptians and 500 Bangladeshis. This remains primarily a logistical emergency, but it is essential that international agencies are provided with unfettered access to help to prevent the development of a humanitarian crisis. With our support, the UN’s emergency co-ordinator, Baroness Amos, convened a special meeting in Geneva today to call for unfettered humanitarian access inside Libya. HMS York has also delivered 1.3 tonnes of Swedish medical supplies to Benghazi.

The Prime Minister will attend an emergency meeting of the European Council on 11 March, this Friday. We will use the Council to press for further action in response to the situation in Libya, and—as the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in Brussels last week—we will also urge the European Union to change radically its thinking about its neighbourhood. As I agreed with the French Foreign Minister in Paris on Thursday, it is time for European nations to be bold and ambitious, and to show that while Europe will not seek to dictate how these countries should run their affairs, we will always be the lasting friend of those who put in place the building blocks of strong civil societies, economic openness and political freedom. We must give every incentive to countries in the region to make decisions that bring freedom and prosperity. At the Council meeting, the Prime Minister will call for Europe to set out a programme to bring down trade barriers, to establish clearer conditions for the help that it provides, and to marshal its resources to act as a magnet for positive change in the region.

The G8 Foreign Ministers’ meeting will take place in Paris next week. It will provide a further opportunity to widen the international coalition addressing the crisis in Libya; to underline with the United States, Russia and others the urgency of progress on the middle east peace process and on Iran’s nuclear programme; and to reaffirm our collective support for political transition in Egypt and Tunisia and democratic reform in the wider region.

There has been welcome progress towards democratic transition in Egypt and Tunisia. There has also been further progress, including the announcement of a national referendum on constitutional reform in Egypt and of a date for elections in Tunisia. However, the resignations of the Prime Ministers of both Governments show that significant challenges remain. There continues to be instability in other countries, including Yemen. We have changed our travel advice: we now advise against all travel to the whole country, and recommend that British nationals without a pressing need to remain in Yemen leave using commercial means. We look to Governments across the region to respect human rights, including the right to peaceful protest, to avoid the use of force and to respond to legitimate aspirations for greater political openness and economic reform.

It remains more vital than ever that we press for a just and lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We want to see an urgent return to negotiations, based on clear parameters, including the 1967 borders. We will work with all the parties to press for a decisive breakthrough this year. President Abbas is visiting the UK this week. I will discuss these issues with him tomorrow, when I will also confirm that, given the extent of our aid to the Palestinian Authority and our work with them, we will join many other countries in upgrading the status of the Palestinian delegation to London to the level of a mission.

If change and development can be achieved peacefully in the middle east, that will be the greatest advance in world affairs since central and eastern Europe changed so dramatically 20 years ago and many of those countries entered the European Union. If not, this could mark the start of even greater instability emanating from the region. It is vital for the people of these countries and the rest of the world that the international community play a coherent and ambitious role in supporting their aspirations. The British Government are deeply committed to that endeavour, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance sight of his statement today. I am grateful to him for his update on the situation in Libya and across the region.

First, let me begin by paying tribute to the bravery of the units of our armed forces that have operated in Libya during this crisis. Specifically, I praise their extraction of British nationals from the oilfields of Libya two weeks ago. This was done with an effectiveness and professionalism that is rightly seen as typical of Britain’s armed forces. Secondly, let me say to the Foreign Secretary that I appreciate just how tough this situation is. There is no manual for handling a wave of revolt in a tumultuous region. The tempo of change in the middle east and north Africa has hardly slowed in more than an month, and none of the policy challenges or ministerial judgments thrown up be these events is straightforward or easy.

On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to add my support and welcome for the Foreign Secretary’s announcement that the status of the Palestinian delegation in London is to be upgraded. He can rely on our support as he continues to make the case for renewed urgency in efforts to bring about real and meaningful negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Let me turn to the events of yesterday. I believe that I speak for many when I say that the news on Sunday that British diplomatic and military personnel were being held was seen as just the latest setback for the United Kingdom, and that it raises further serious questions about Ministers’ grip on and response to the unfolding events in Libya. First, we had the still unexplained decision by the Foreign Secretary, alone among European Foreign Ministers, to publicise reports that Gaddafi was already on his way to Venezuela. Then, the Foreign Office was late in securing charter flights and even in convening the Government’s emergency Committee, Cobra, when hundreds of UK nationals were stranded and clearly in danger. Then, last week, the option of a no-fly zone was first talked up and then talked down, with the US Defence Secretary warning against loose talk on the issue. Twice in as many weeks—after the events of this weekend, and following the flights fiasco—ministerial decisions have generated an embarrassment that could all too easily have become a tragedy.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Benghazi courthouse that is serving as the headquarters of the interim national council is but 2 miles from where HMS Cumberland was berthed yesterday afternoon? Secondly, will he confirm that the Royal Marines have, on several occasions in recent days, assisted EU nationals from Benghazi on to royal naval warships in the area?

The Foreign Secretary has confirmed today that he personally authorised this mission. Given the outcome of the effort, will he now tell us whether he discussed the merits or demerits of the proposed course of action with senior officials? Did he discuss alternative means of achieving the mission’s aim with his senior officials ahead of his decision being taken? In particular, did he discuss the mission with the Prime Minister in advance of his decision to authorise it?

Will the Foreign Secretary share with the House his assessment of the impact of this weekend’s events on the credibility of British foreign policy with the Gaddafi regime in Tripoli and the opposition forces in Benghazi? Perhaps the Foreign Secretary has read the question asked by a spokesman for the opposition forces in today’s edition of The Times. Let me quote his words directly:

“If this is an official delegation why did they come with a helicopter? Why didn’t they [inform the revolutionary council] that ‘we are coming, we’d like to land at Benina airport’, or come through Egypt like all the journalists have done”.

Given those remarks, does the Foreign Secretary accept that if some new neighbours moved into his street, the British public would be entitled to wonder whether he would introduce himself by ringing the doorbell, or instead choose to climb over the fence in the middle of the night?

The Opposition support the Government’s aim of establishing a dialogue with Gaddafi’s opponents. We welcome today’s statement that further efforts will be made to engage with the opposition forces now running parts of Libya, but our welcome to that initiative is conditional, for it should be done in a considered, co-ordinated way with our European and NATO allies. The strategic objectives for the west—sustaining pressure on the regime; helping and where we can protecting the Libyan population; and over time working to assist in ensuring that popular revolt becomes more democratic government—do not divide this House.

This week’s meetings of the European Union and NATO remain opportunities to co-ordinate the international response and increase pressure on Gaddafi. May I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary whether he would consider requesting that the Arab League attend Friday’s EU summit, to signal clearly the breadth of international pressure, in the region and beyond, on the Gaddafi regime? That meeting will also be vital in shaping the humanitarian response. We of course welcome the work undertaken by the Department for International Development and the visit that the Secretary of State for International Development recently paid, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary will update the House on the work being done across Government to support a multilateral response though the World Food Programme, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and indeed the Commonwealth.

The EU summit can do more in sharpening the choice for Gaddafi’s supporters, explicitly stating that assistance will be available to a post-Gaddafi Libya in tackling trade barriers and supporting democratic progress. The summit can be equally explicit to those fighting for Gaddafi: those who leave his forces should be confident about the treatment that they will receive, while officers and mercenaries who stick with him should know that they will face serious consequences in future. At the NATO meeting this week the Secretary of State for Defence will have our support for considering the available contingencies. All options should remain on the table, given the need to sustain pressure on the regime.

Given that it remains uncertain whether this wave of revolt is over—we continue to hear talk of protests in countries beyond Tunisia, Libya and Egypt—can we be confident that lessons are being learned by Ministers about the serial bungling that we have seen in recent weeks? That is what the British people want, and that is what they deserve.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for much of what he said. He pays tribute to the bravery of the troops involved in extracting people from the oilfields two weekends ago, and he is absolutely right to do so. I welcome his welcome for the upgrading of the status of the Palestinian delegation. It is good that that is supported across the House.

There is clearly a good deal of agreement too on the overall outlines of western policy in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman stated, as we have, that all options should remain on the table. He underlined the importance of working closely with the Arab League, which should be continued in many different forms. I do not know whether that will be possible at the European Council this week, but we are in close touch with many of those Arab nations about all the options that may be necessary over the coming weeks and months. Close consultation and co-ordination with those nations will need to continue.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the multilateral aspects of humanitarian aid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in continuous close touch with Baroness Amos and all the organisations and people the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, including the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and others. We will keep up that work, including on co-ordinating our humanitarian and logistical assistance with France—we have co-ordinated it to a degree—which has also worked well.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about matters that were raised in the House last Monday, so I will not go over all of them again, except to say this on his question about whether there has been a variation in policy on the no-fly zone and whether our policy is out of step with that of other nations: the policy is exactly as stated by the Prime Minister here at the Dispatch Box last Monday, which is that contingency planning should be done for a no-fly zone. It is exactly the same position as that expressed by Secretary Clinton last week, and exactly the same as that expressed by the French Government, as the French Foreign Minister and I made clear at our press conference last week. I think from what the right hon. Gentleman says that it also enjoys the support of the Opposition in this House, so I think we are aligned on this policy.

On the deployment in Benghazi, the factual points the right hon. Gentleman stated in his question are correct. On consultation with officials and who decided what and so on, we should be clear that when our staff go into a potentially dangerous situation, a level of protection is provided for them, based on professional and military advice. We do that in many places around the world, and it was, of course, important to do so in this situation. As I explained, I authorised such a mission to be made to put a diplomatic team into eastern Libya with protection. Of course, the timing and details of that are operational matters decided by the professionals, but Ministers must have confidence in their judgments, as I do, and must take full ministerial responsibility for all their actions and judgments, as, of course, I do. The Prime Minister and other Ministers were of course aware that we would attempt to put a diplomatic team into eastern Libya.

On the overall impact of British foreign policy on the Gaddafi regime and others, they are aware, as is much of the world, that we have led the way at the United Nations Security Council and drafted the resolution that was passed last weekend, that we led the way at the UN Human Rights Council, gathering the signatures that led to the suspension of Libya, and that we are at the forefront both of implementing the assets freeze and other measures that are putting pressure on the regime and of getting the message through in Libya that reference has been made to the International Criminal Court. The impact of British foreign policy on this situation and on the Gaddafi regime is extremely powerful, and that is how it will remain.

Bahrain

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. There is indeed a movement for change in many parts of the Arab world, although we must understand that motivations and aspirations differ from one country to another. Bahrain has achieved much more economic development than Tunisia or Egypt, but it has a starker religious divide, despite the efforts of the Bahraini Government to say that everyone is a Bahraini. The circumstances are different in each country. A meeting of Gulf Co-operation Council Ministers is taking place in Bahrain this afternoon. They will discuss the situation together.

My right hon. and learned Friend asked specifically about the Arab League. In recent days, I have discussed the situation in the Arab world, and most specifically in Egypt, with the secretary-general of the Arab League, Mr Amr Moussa. We might be hoping for too much if we expect a consistent position on this by the Arab League, because the circumstances of each country differ so much, and because, of course, the Arab League includes nations such as Syria and Libya, which have a particularly severe approach to dissent and are not accommodating of any reform movements or demonstrations in their countries. I think, therefore, that it would be difficult to bring about a unified response from the Arab League, although it would be very good if it did happen. The British Government will continue to make our case in exactly the way he described.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. Will he give more detail of the work being done to support British nationals in the country, and what contingency plans will go ahead in the event of these protests escalating? I fully support his comments urging restraint on all sides and expressing the British Government’s grave concerns about the policing of the protests on Pearl square, and his advocacy of the protection of human rights. Given the strength of our diplomatic relationship with Bahrain, will he tell the House what he and his officials plan on doing in the days ahead to ensure that the Bahraini Government are aware that the eyes of the whole world are on the behaviour of the police and security forces in the light of recent events? He is right, of course, to say that Bahrain has seen some progress on political reform since the introduction of the new constitution in 2002, and I welcome the fact that when he was in Bahrain last week, he raised the importance of continuing progress along that path. Will he therefore tell the House specifically what advice on such further reform he gave to the Bahraini Government last week, and what steps the British Government would now like to see in the days, weeks and months ahead?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. On contingency plans, I have spoken to our ambassador in Bahrain this morning. Of course, we are watching the situation very carefully as it may affect British nationals, travel advice or the situation at the airport. If it becomes necessary, we will send additional resources to reinforce our diplomatic or consular presence. That does not seem to be necessary yet, but we will keep it under review night and day. After recent experiences in Egypt and Tunisia, we are used to sending a rapid deployment team when necessary, and to smoothly and calmly assisting British nationals if a crisis develops. I also thank him for his welcome for other things that the Government have said.

On the specific advice that we give to the Bahraini Government now and in the future, we always have to be careful, given that we do not believe in outside interference in the political affairs of other nations, about being so prescriptive that we think exactly what reforms should take place. However, we think that there are legitimate aspirations that should be satisfied, and that it is important that the Government in Bahrain continue to make it clear in their words and actions that political reforms will continue and that economic opportunities will be opened up across the whole of society. That is what we will emphasise. However, as another nation, we will not try to determine the exact detail of their policies.

Middle East

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for prior sight of the statement he has just offered to the House. I welcome several aspects of the statement and join him, of course, in praising the work of officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the ground in Egypt and, in particular, the bravery of British staff working under difficult circumstances in Yemen. I also welcome the discussion of the use of the new Arab partnership fund and the work under way to co-ordinate international efforts to provide appropriate and timely support to Egypt. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks last week emphasising the continuing importance of the middle east peace process—sentiments that he has echoed again today—and his continued efforts to help to address the continuing challenges facing Yemen and the grave threat of Iran’s nuclear programme.

As we watched a moment of history unfold on our television screens on Friday night, few of us would not have sensed history being made amid peaceful celebration and a genuine sense of hope and possibility communicated by the people of Egypt. Old certainties—political, regional and strategic—have been challenged by the scenes of hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere in the Arab world demanding a fundamental change in the relationship between the governed and their governments. I would therefore like, in particular, to address three points covered by the Foreign Secretary’s remarks. The first is the work that the Government are doing, in conjunction with the interim Egyptian Administration and the Serious Fraud Office, to ensure that assets wrongly taken from either the people of Tunisia or the people of Egypt are pursued and returned. The second is the British Government’s position on the future of Egypt, and the third is the implications of all these events on the wider region and the middle east peace process.

Earlier this month, it was reported that the assets of 46 allies and relatives of former President Ben Ali had been frozen following talks with the Tunisian Government. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that this has indeed gone ahead, and update the House on the work of British and European Union officials to ensure that any assets wrongfully appropriated from the people of Tunisia by former President Ben Ali are returned to them? In recent days, there have been many media reports suggesting that former President Mubarak has a very large personal fortune held in bank accounts and property in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, among other countries. Yesterday, the Business Secretary said:

“I think it would be great for the reputation for the City of London if those accounts were frozen now.”

Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) stated on the radio:

“There has to be a request made for any of this action to take place…There are things that can be done, but so far there has not been a request made and therefore it is not possible to speculate”.

I note, however, from the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House this afternoon, that a request has now been received from the Egyptian Government. Will he therefore tell the House precisely when the request was received and what subsequent actions the Government have taken to freeze the relevant assets since its receipt? Will he inform the House what instructions have now been given to the Serious Fraud Office in the light of the request, and when the SFO began its actions in relation to the matter? Given the comments earlier today from the chairman of the Euro Group, Jean-Claude Juncker, supporting an asset freeze, will he explain the need for a delay in taking action before tomorrow’s meeting with European Finance Ministers? Why cannot this issue be addressed through direct contact and agreement with capitals prior to the meeting taking place? For the assurance of the House, will he confirm that he agrees with the Opposition that the UK should play its part in ensuring that any money that rightly belongs to the Egyptian people is returned to them?

Let me turn to the broader issue of Egypt’s future. The events of Thursday and Friday last week were extraordinary, but the question dominating our debate is: what comes next? The Foreign Secretary expressed his support for a clear timetable, but what is the British Government’s specific policy on the timing of the elections? Should they follow the timetable set out by President Mubarak on Thursday, or is it the Government’s view that a longer transitional period would now be more appropriate? Important as they are, free and fair elections alone do not guarantee effective democratic governance, which involves the vital and unglamorous task of building a series of institutions, as we heard, from diverse political parties to a free press, and from legal safeguards for human rights and minorities to an independent judiciary.

During that transition, are the Foreign Secretary and his officials pressing the higher military council for the emergency laws to be removed and detainees freed, and for maximum freedom to be given to political parties and trade unions to organise in preparation for democratic elections? The polarising policy adopted by the Mubarak regime undermined moderates and ensured that perhaps the two most powerful and enduring post-Mubarak power structures in Egypt are the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. Have officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office met the Muslim Brotherhood in recent days? Will the Foreign Secretary give us his latest assessment of the nature of the organisation and the strength of its support in Egypt, and say how he assesses its potential impact on Britain’s objectives for the region, which he set out for the House today?

Let me turn briefly to the consequences of these developments on the wider region. The Foreign Secretary met the Government of Yemen in recent days. Will he offer us the latest security assessment of the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula? Having attended the London Friends of Yemen conference in my capacity as Secretary of State for International Development, I am aware of the challenges faced in Yemen, so will he update the House on how British resources are being used, ahead of the establishment of the multi-donor trust fund, to address the development and security challenges faced in Yemen?

I welcome the reference made by the Foreign Secretary to the situation of the Iranian opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who has reportedly been placed under house arrest in order to prevent him from attending demonstrations in Tehran. Will the Foreign Secretary share with the House what further steps he is contemplating in speaking up for human rights in Iran? He has expressed his rightful concern about the grave danger of Iran’s nuclear programme, so will he update the House on his assessment of the prospects for the E3 plus 3 process, given the disappointing failure of the talks in Istanbul?

The announcement of the formation of a new Cabinet of the Palestinian Authority, combined with the planned presidential and legislative elections in September, is widely perceived as yet another consequence of the events in Tunisia and Egypt of recent days. The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, also reportedly offered his resignation on Saturday, although reports suggest that Mr Abbas has not yet accepted it. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the situation is in the Palestinian Authority, and say what further information he has about the timing of those elections?

For many involved in the peace process from the Israeli side, the events of the last few weeks will have been unsettling. Although the cold peace with Mr Mubarak was the foundation of Israel’s regional security, the events of recent days show just how brittle that supposed stability was. What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with his Israeli counterpart on the subject, and what he has done to urge the Israelis to see recent events as an impetus for a renewed commitment to the peace process? I am sure that I speak for all parts of the House when I say that, for the region, a peace one day between the legitimate representatives of the people of Egypt and a secure Israel would be an even greater prize than the last 30 years of stability.

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a wide range of questions, and I shall try to go through them. I thank him for his words about the staff of the Foreign Office, and about what they have done and continue to do in Yemen, as well as in Egypt. I know that it will mean a lot to them to be appreciated in all parts of the House.

I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for what I have said about the middle east peace process. As I understood it, he supports the intensification of our measures on Iran, which I talked about in my statement. These are conscious changes in policy. It is a conscious change in policy for not only us, but the United States to say that a settlement in the middle east should be based on 1967 borders. It is a conscious change in policy to say that now, on top of the measures agreed in the European Union last year, the peaceful pressure on Iran must be intensified. To be joined by the Opposition in those changes of policy gives strength to them, and it always counts for a great deal in foreign policy for this House to speak in a united way.

I might have to take the right hon. Gentleman’s questions in reverse order, but I will try to get through them all. This leads us naturally to a discussion of the peace process, which I have discussed with my Israeli counterpart. Foreign Minister Lieberman visited London on 24 January, and we have also had more recent discussions with the Israeli Government. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) was there over the weekend, underlining the point that the events in the region strengthen the case for making a success of negotiations on a two-state solution. I hope that recent events will be a jolt to many among the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, showing them that, in the next few years, the opportunity to find a two-state solution will slip away unless there is a renewed readiness to engage in the process.

I am concerned about instability on the Palestinian side of the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the reported offer by the Palestinian chief negotiator to resign. There is also the prospect of elections among the Palestinians. This instability also underlines the importance of finding a way of getting the direct talks going again soon. The United Kingdom is very active diplomatically in trying to do that, and we will continue to be so.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the prospects for the E3 plus 3 negotiations with Iran. There will be prospects for those negotiations only if Iran approaches them entirely differently from the way in which its negotiators approached the meeting in Istanbul on 21 and 22 January. The preconditions that Iran set for that meeting were entirely unrealistic, as Iran knew. It is important that it should be prepared to discuss its whole nuclear programme with the E3 plus 3 if such negotiations are to succeed. The door remains open to negotiations with Iran, but, so far, it has not proved willing to enter it.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Yemen. There is of course a serious threat to our national security from the operations of al-Qaeda in Yemen. The recently well-reported cargo bomb plot was evidence of that. We are active in Yemen. The right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the fact that the Department for International Development is very active there, with £50 million of support in the current year helping to provide more schools, to increase the number of doctors and to help with microfinance projects. That is valuable work, but we could do a lot more if we had the agreed framework of working with Yemen that we are calling for through the Friends of Yemen process, including the detailed development and poverty reduction plan. We received details of that plan just as I arrived in Yemen, and we are now examining it. I regard our work on the affairs and stability of Yemen in the coming months to be of great importance in the conduct of our foreign policy.

We certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s points about the future of Egypt. I think I mentioned in my statement that we want detainees to be freed. We also want to see a clear timetable for elections. There is an expectation that they will take place in six months, but not yet a categorical commitment. It would be wise to meet that expectation. As he and I have both said, however, democracy is more than about holding elections. What matters even more than the date is that the process between now and then should allow new political parties and civil society in general to grow and prosper. That is why it is important that emergency laws should be lifted, and that we and other nations—not only European nations but democratic Muslim nations such as Turkey and Indonesia—should join in the building up of civil society in Egypt. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that space between the National Democratic party and the Muslim Brotherhood has not been filled before. The Opposition parties in Egypt are small and weak.

We retain, as the previous Government did, certain contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood—in particular with those who were elected Members of Parliament in the 2005 elections. There has been normal contact with them, and that contact continues. Those people have clearly taken part in recent events in Egypt, although they are insistent that they will not be contesting the presidency of the country. We will maintain our contact with them, and judge them by their behaviour.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the seizure of assets. Yes, the requests made by the Tunisian Government are being acted on. The freeze has been implemented, investigations are taking place, and the ways in which our authorities should co-operate with that are being followed up.

The specific request from Egypt was received this morning. That is why there is a difference between what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said on the radio yesterday, when that request had not been received—and had certainly not been seen by Ministers—and the information put out this morning, which is that such a request has been received and will be acted on.

To clarify an issue for the right hon. Gentleman, it is not the Serious Fraud Office, but the Serious Organised Crime Agency that is involved in the investigation of assets acquired through corruption. We, of course, have to abide by the law on this matter. That means that we will act on requests from foreign countries, but that Ministers can direct an investigation or a seizure and freezing of assets only if they are in possession of evidence of criminal activity or of a threat to our national security. We are under certain constraints if no request is received. Nevertheless, the European Union is able to implement an assets freeze for wider purposes, which is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is discussing with his colleagues in the EU tonight. We are acting on this expeditiously, and I thoroughly agree with the general sentiment that the right hon. Gentleman expressed about this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I hope that I will always see such a role. Indeed, in the same allocation of FCO programme funds, on which I made a written statement earlier today, my hon. Friend will see that there is a small increase for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, from £3 million to £3.5 million. The foundation does important work across the world, and all of us across the House would want it to succeed.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what discussions he has held on appointing a successor to US envoy Richard Holbrooke, an individual who I know was widely respected in all parts of the House, and on the political progress that he expects to be made in Afghanistan by the time of the Bonn conference later this year?

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not for us to appoint the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States Government will take care of that. We are in discussions with them about how we will work together with a new special representative. It is a crucial role, and Richard Holbrooke is very much missed in it, but I cannot update the right hon. Gentleman on the United States decisions about that appointment. He is right to highlight the importance of the political process in Afghanistan. It is vital that it should be Afghan-led, but the United Kingdom will support and facilitate it wherever we can, and also urge the support of other countries in the region, such as Pakistan, to contribute positively to that process.

[Mr Alexander]

Given the interrelationship of insurgency, poverty and narcotics, about which there have already been discussions and exchanges this afternoon, can the right hon. Gentleman explain the basis for his decision, as set out in the written ministerial statement to which he referred, to make

“a reduction of £2 million”

in

“counter-narcotics and rule of law programmes in Afghanistan”?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we have to adjust the spending totals from time to time—the change will be from £18 million to £16 million—because some programmes are coming to their natural end, and because I want to ensure that we can keep the current level of resources for counter-terrorist co-operation, which stand at £38 million and are focused predominantly on Afghanistan. We always have difficult choices to make on spending, but there is a natural evolution in our counter-narcotics work which means that some programmes are coming to their end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I note and welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary is due to speak to Vice-President Suleiman after questions this afternoon. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to share with the House what specific steps he will be encouraging the vice-president to now take, beyond the discussions that he has already mentioned, to ensure the orderly transition to free and fair elections and the broad-based Government that EU Foreign Ministers agreed upon yesterday?

[Mr Hague]

That is the direction in which we would like the Egyptian authorities to move. As I have said, it is disappointing that the new Cabinet does not constitute the broad-based Administration that we, the rest of the EU and so many of Egypt’s friends around the world were looking for. We continue to urge the Egyptian authorities to take the necessary steps to form such a Government to ensure that real, visible and believable reform is presented to the people of Egypt, as well as effective guarantees of free and fair elections. We think that it is necessary for them to respond to the mood and demands of the Egyptian people and to do so quickly if there is to be an orderly transition, rather than a violent and disorderly situation.

BBC World Service

Debate between Lord Hague of Richmond and Douglas Alexander

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, there is some degree of excitement in the BBC Trust about that—about the potential in being able to bring together more easily the resources of the BBC and the experience of the BBC World Service. For instance, it might be able to develop BBC World television more successfully, so there is a positive side to look forward to, and that is what the House should concentrate on.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I should be interested if the Foreign Secretary could, for the sake of the House, adduce the evidence whereby the BBC Trust is excited at the prospect of the cuts that have been announced today. The director-general of the BBC has made it clear that the cuts are a direct consequence of last autumn’s spending review. Of course, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should not be exempt from the need to reduce the deficit, but in making cuts in the FCO, especially to a relatively small budget that has a global impact, there is surely a need for particular care and concern.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what proportion of the cuts to the FCO under the spending review settlement will be absorbed by the core FCO budget as distinct from the World Service and, indeed, the British Council? Will he set out his explanation of why the BBC World Service will absorb 16% to 20% real-terms cuts as against 10% real-terms cuts for the FCO? Will he explain how his often-stated ambition to strengthen bilateral relations with the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—is advanced by the end of radio programming in Mandarin Chinese? The reach and respect of the BBC World Service is a huge asset for Britain, and the Government should not put that at risk.

[Mr Hague]

May I first of all welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box? I look forward to working with him and to many exchanges with him, although we will always remember that he was Minister for Europe when £7 billion of our rebate was given away, which would of course have paid for the World Service 30 times over. We may have to remind him of that on future occasions as well.

I did not say that the BBC was excited about the reductions in the budget, but, considering the meeting that I had with the corporation about the issue in October, I can say that it is certainly excited about the potential in bringing together the work of the BBC and the World Service, so my evidence is the meeting that I had with Sir Michael Lyons and his colleagues.

It is true that in this spending round the real-terms cut in the Foreign Office budget is 10% and in the World Service budget 16%, but it is true also that in the previous three years the cut in the core Foreign Office budget was much greater. On the effect of all that, by 2013-14 the proportion of the Foreign Office budget accounted for by the World Service will be pretty much exactly the same as it was when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Foreign Office, five years ago. We ask the World Service only to bear its fair share of the public expenditure reductions, which are obviously necessary in this country. That is the right and fair thing to do, and now we have to work with the World Service and support it in making the best possible job of that.

The Chinese service reaches a very small number of people compared with the size of the Chinese population, and it needs refocusing. The new, enriched online service will aim to reach not only people in China, but 67 million Chinese people who live outside China, and it is designed to be more appealing to younger audiences. Again, there is a rationale for many of the changes that the World Service proposes, albeit within financial constraints.